National security is yet another reason for the U.S. to move away from fossil fuels, according to the Military Advisory Board (MAB)of the CNA research group. Citing oil shocks over the past few decades, and their destabilizing effects on our economic interests, these military leaders urged "immediate, swift and aggressive action" to reduce U.S. oil consumtion 30% over the next 10 years.
The U.S. increasingly has become dependent on oil as its primary source of energy, and this dependency makes the nation vulnerable to short and long term disruptions in the oil supply. Retired General Paul Kern, who chairs the Military Advisory Board, notes that U.S. dependency on oil is exploited by nations, unfriendly to U.S. interests.
The MAB report, "Ensuring America's Freedom of Movement: A National Security to Reduce U.S. Oil Dependence," states that as the world demand for oil increases and supply decreases, we either have to decide to diversify our energy supply, or face increased risks of international conflict, necessitating military intervention. Failure to act to free ourselves from oil also makes the military more vulnerable, by requiring long convoys that are vulnerable to attacks.
The MAB report calls on congress and the administration to increase transportation efficiency and diversify fuel supplies. Increased fuel economy standards are mentioned as a way to achieve overall transportation efficiency. Also, the board notes that government should be in the business of promoting wider public acceptance of alternative mode of transportation.
For more information:
Top Military Leaders Want US to Reduce Oil Consumption 30% in Next 10 Years
Ensuring America's Freedom of Movement: A National Security to Reduce U.S. Oil Dependence
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 125
That's funny. So do I. I would love to see us conserve energy and move to renewable energy by that much over the next ten years.
That's the nature of our money shooting us in the foot again.
How does Gore giving a speech make it a reality that we could transform our economy to renewable energy in ten years?
There's a lot we could be doing and are not, but believing in Gore's delusions and promoting them doesn't help us advance renewables.
You're the one spreading the global warmist propaganda that if we don't do what you all say we should do that we are doomed....That's what you all are all about hopelessness.
Haven't you seen the photographs from space of the polar ice being reduced (at both poles)? The earth is warming. Would you have humanity passively allow that to happen or try to prevent as much of the disaster as we can?
Personally, I would rather do something about it. But then I have confidence that humanity can accomplish all sorts of things.
Do either of you know of any research that shows us that reducing mans C02 by the fractions suggested will change the climate? No you don't!
See Steve you are about hopeless efforts...Just do something even if you don't know that it will help.
What evidence would you find convincing?
Why should we limit ourselves to the reduction levels suggested?
Dan will not find any evidence convincing. As I noted above, if every major scientific organization on the planet, publishing and reviewing evidence over several lines of research, cannot convince Dan, then nothing written on a social website is going to do so. Indeed, Dan doesn't believe that every major scientific organization in the world understands the science.
Larry (to Dan):
"Why should we limit ourselves to the reduction levels suggested?"
Dan's level of insight on this issue is what is limited. He is not apparently able to grasp just how absurd his politically motivated opinion is.
Every major scientific organization in the world, Dan. You believe they take positions without evidence.
"See Steve you are about hopeless efforts...Just do something even if you don't know that it will help."
You would risk the future well-being, if not survivability, of every future generation because doing something doesn't agree with your politics.
Rather than your continued broken recording, how about you produce some of the research that all of those scientific organization rely on to come to their conclusions......No! I didn't think so! LOL!
It is a rhetorical question....NO such evidence exists. It has not been proven that eliminating even ALL of human produced C02 will have any effect on the climate.
While you're at it, please write an ethical treatise re: why it is a moral position to bet against the world's scientific organizations on behalf of every future generation. No? I didn't think so! LOL! You'll just stick to your absurd theory that the scientific organizations don't really understand the science.
Whether it exists or not, what evidence can you imagine that would convince you that "research that shows us that reducing mans C02 (sic) by the fractions suggested will change the climate"? What research findings can you imagine that would, if found, convince you that the climate can be changed by increasing or decreasing the atmospheric CO2?
If you just say that no such research exists, I don't know what to look for since thousands of scientists have indicated that they have such research and yet you reject their assertions. Therefore, I ask, what would it take to convince you that those scientists are correct?
Can you produce any of the research that you claim "thousands of scientists have indicated that they have" that supposedly validates the theory of man caused global warming?
Or we can just ignore people like him who actually tell it like it is. I know who I believe students without qualifications or people with them, no brainer really is it. I don't know about you Dan but I stopped reading fairy stories when I grew up.
I have given you two opportunities to answer my question. It is clear that you have no answer. See you on some other thread.
If there was any valid research conclusively linking human produced C02 and global warming you all would be posting it, when you cut and run like this it just reinforces my point, it does not exist!
Your questions are nothing but a diversion.
Can you produce any thing that conclusively links human produced C02 and global warming.........NO.....I didn't think so! LOL!
Actually, Dan, your denial is the diversion. The world's scientific institutions are quite familiar with the evidence you keep demanding - and they all line up against your political nonsense. If you had any credible research to present, you'd submit it for publication in a scientific journal. Yet you've provided no link to your recently published scientific articles. Go figure....
And if you had any ethical justification for betting against all of the world's scientific organizations, relative to all of the future generations, then you'd be posting that as well. But we hear nothing from you or your fellow cynics on the morality of denialism. How come? No - like all active addicts, you simply deny there's a problem, and you even incredibly claim that the world's scientific organizations don't understand the science.
And what do they (all of those scientific organizations) say is the reason that the planet has not continued its meteoric temperature increase, despite our continued and ever increasing addition of C02 to the atmosphere?
Can you tell me what the time period is on the chart you are looking at? You see, the charts I have seen show the temperature still increasing for the world and both polar ice caps are being reduced in size.
Larry,
The first two charts of of the article are of temperature anomalies, both using the same 5 data sources, one beginning in 1998 and the other beginning in 2002, in the chart beginning in 1998 only one source (GISS) shows any appreciable rise, at less than .02, beginning in 2002 the temperature trend is no warming at all.
Thanks for showing the chart you are basing your statement upon. There is another chart that does not start in 1998 later on that page which show a significant increase in temperature because it starts in 1970. Perhaps if you will consider that chart starting in 1970 you will understand why it appears to me that the temperature of the earth is rising.
NOAA Climate Services
Larry: "Thanks for showing the chart you are basing your statement upon. There is another chart that does not start in 1998...."
Exactly right, Larry. Dan has been told time and again that starting his "evaluation" in 1998 is "cherry picking" - not science. Yet he persists in this decidedly non-scientific line of cynical propaganda. At some point, you gotta wonder why.
Btw, in response to 2010 being the warmest on record (one source) or tied for the warmest on record (another source), Dan said,
The fact that "2010 Ties the Warmest Year on Record" also doesn't change the fact that we have experienced virtually no warming for the last ten years or so. Dan E. Jan 26, 2011, 4:54am EST
The planet has warmed in the past and the chart you mention in my referenced article certainly shows that, since from the 70s until the late 90s there was primarily a warming trend with short downward fluctuations, we are still warmer than we were 50 or 100 years ago which is why we still see melting of sea ice and such. I have never argued that we have not warmed (despite what Steve says) my argument has always been that if it were human produced C02 that were driving global warming then we wouldn't have this extended (10+ years) hold on the planet's temperature increasing.
Cause and effect, that is why Steve's claim that it is not science is not valid, it is a rebuttal of the IPCC's report where they declared that it was 90% or more likely that the warming was anthropogenic in nature....If indeed the past warming was anthropogenic in nature then the temperature rise would have continued to rise as we continued to expel greater and greater quantities of C02.
Based on that 1970-2010 chart there seem to have been three or four previous periods with at least five year periods of downward temperatures of a length similar to that starting in 1998. The overall trend is obviously upward. The chart line looks like a strong association between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. Certainly a simple correlation coefficient would indicate a significant association between the two. This shape pattern in the chart is just what one would expect if man made CO2 were the cause of the association. It supports rather than refutes the IPCC's report.
Welcome to the Nature online manuscript submission and tracking system.
"If indeed the past warming was anthropogenic in nature then the temperature rise would have continued to rise as we continued to expel greater and greater quantities of C02."
NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record - Summer 2010 the second warmest on record, Arctic sea ice continues its 14-year decline
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening.
That has been explained to Dan many, many times. It is a mystery why he continues to run from that information.
And the last 10 years?
In answer to your question, see Steve's 9:41 comment just above and click on some of those links.
"You would risk the future well-being, if not survivability, of every future generation because doing something doesn't agree with your politics."
While that sort of rhetoric may seem ever so noble and invigorating, in reality-land things are more complex than; We must do something because doing nothing is risky . .
"Upon conducting a comprehensive review of emissions created by oil palm plantations, a team from the University of Leicester (UL) in the UK found that much of the existing data used to back current biofuel policies is incorrect. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from oil palm plantations are more than 50 percent higher than most estimates which, when considered along with pollution generated by the burning of biofuel, has more of a detrimental environmental impact than the burning of fossil fuel.
Palm oil represents a major source of oil used in food production around the world. Palm oil is a rich source of vitamin E, and is far healthier than other food oil alternatives like soy and canola (http://www.naturalnews.com/028941_t...). But increased demand for it as a biofuel has resulted in the untold destruction of the rainforest throughout southeast Asia to make way for massive oil palm plantations."
"Back in 2010, an EU report revealed that the burning of biofuel releases as much as 400 percent more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels. And like the UL palm oil study, the EU study found that the mass conversion of a pristine rainforest into biofuel crop fields is playing a major role in the destruction of biodiversity worldwide."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034089_biofuels_fossil_fuels.html#ixzz1dFDzupD1
That's what really has been done with the "carbon market" credits/offsets that are supposedly going to save the planet if we all just shut up and do our part . . And, each time the cost to produce and transport food rises significantly, millions of people at the very bottom of the economic scale, are condemned to death by starvation. The folks running this "planet saving" game, know that.
" . . . if not sensible."
You have a problem understanding what those studies reveal, Steve? Let me make it simple; Horrible things are being done to the "environment", and poor people, in the name of saving us from a harmless trace gas, that all plants actually require to live and grow.
Everything alive also requires water, but as Bangkok presently is experiencing, you can have too much of a good thing. CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. The science regarding that scientific fact has been well understood for over a century. Additional heat in the atmosphere means heightened energy. Presently, also, Alaska is experiencing an extremely intense blizzare - hurricane strength wind, and waves 50 ft. high. But I don't expect you to ever come out of your stupor, regardless of whatever extreme weather you happen to experience. My concern is the waves of tornadic storms, which have become the "new normal" for my region of the country. I have lived in this region my entire life. These waves did not happen when I was a child and youth. But bottomline, I think professional scientists and their professional organizations are a bit more credible than your conspiracy theories.
Looks like that's not the only thing that's not working for you. Sorry.
In other words Larry, the last ten years do not fit into the pattern that you suggest implies mans contribution to global warming.
When I show 10 years of data it's cherry picking but when Steve shows one small spike in 2010 it's not? LOL!
Take a look at the data, there was a spike in 2010 but when we look at the temperature trend for the last ten years it's nearly flat. this despite the fact that we have been continually increasing the amount of C02 we add the the atmosphere every year.
In the chart you provided a link to, there were several ten year periods that did not fit the overall trend of temperatures. But the overall trend is definitely up to higher temperatures. You might compare the last ten years of the chard with the first ten years. See any difference?
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
Global Warming Stopped in 1998
"When I show 10 years of data it's cherry picking but when Steve shows one small spike in 2010 it's not? LOL!"
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - How to Pick a Cherry
As long as we're cherry picking 10 year sets of data, try starting in 2001. Dan won't do that, of course, because the trend then includes 2010, a year that was either tied as the warmest year ever, or was the warmest year ever.
NOAA: 2010 Tied with 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record - Summer 2010 the second warmest on record, Arctic sea ice continues its 14-year decline
NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest Ever
But the above links also detail why picking 10 year intervals is invalid scientifically. Dan, of course, knows all this, but for some unknown reason(s), continues to repeat unscientific information as if it is science. Thus, his "position" is wilfully dishonest.
There is no comparison to the first ten years in the chart, we now have vastly more C02 in the atmosphere that we did then in 1970 we had right around 325 PPM and now we have 388 PPM atmospheric C02, and if we listen to you global warmists, it is the human produced C02 that is driving global warming.....using the global warmists logic there is no way we should be seeing this lack of increase in planetary temperature with such high C02 numbers....but we are seeing an abatement of the continued increase in warming.
Just what is the source of that increased CO2 if not human activity? We are pretty sure that we are dumping many tons of CO2 into the air around the world. Do you have evidence that some other source of CO2 accounts for the increase? If so, please let the world know.
Do you contend that each day this fall must be cooler than the preceding day or the shortening of the daylight is having no effect on temperatures?
Please post something from your link that counters the facts that I have posted of gives a reasonable explanation for the planet not warming for the last 10 years or so.
You are using the same ole liberal globalist tactic of posting links to articles and suggesting that they counter something when they don't counter anything at all, they reinforce the consensus that man is the cause of global warming and do nothing at all.
This is where the myth that proof has been posted "hundreds" of times come from.
Post the temperature data for the last ten years that shows that the planet's temperature has continued it's supposed meteoric warming of prior times.
Post the temperature data that you rely on to declare 2010 as the warmest on record and you will show us exactly what I already suggested, while you criticize my highlighting 10 years of data as cherry picking you highlight one or two months in 2010 as validity for your suggestion that 2010 is the warmest on record....and proof that global warming has not moderated.
Are you now trying to move away from the traditional global wamist argument that with increased C02 levels we must have increased temperature?
If not what is causing the last ten years if a lack of temperature increasing?
As you well know, there are many factors that affect climate. CO2 is one of those things. Over a period of time (decades) that influence can be noticed and the rate of change approximated.
No one except nut cases would contend that only CO2 matters. No climate scientist has ever made such a contention and I have not. That is what is called a "straw man" argument. It is intended to distract the reader from the total lack of a case on the part of the person who says that is the position he is opposing.
Look at the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 40 years as shown by the chart you asked me to view. If you can't see that correlation then you are totally hopeless.
You had better be talking to the Gather global warmists who get livid when We the people stop their desired carbon tax to be enacted or when we block the EPA from enacting their draconian carbon regulations! Because they certainly believe that human produced C02 is the primary cause of the (currently non existent) rise in global temperatures....Are they the nutcases you are referencing?
Which of those "other factors" are the reason for the last ten years?
The chart you provided shows global warming.
But then you knew that. :-)
Good bye, Dan.
And again what "factors" are responsible for the last ten years Larry?
No, this is about ego. The wonderful thing about the internet is that you get to post whatever you want. Which means people who would be laughed at (or arrested for theft) in the real world get to convince themselves that what they say has value.
Frankly, I should go back to simply ignoring the dishonest folks and focus on providing accurate content. On the other hand, that's what the denialist industry counts on - that honest people will get so fed up with the harassment that they no longer take the time to call out the dishonesty.
I have reduced my oil (gas) usage by at least 95%. Many major auto manfacturers are getting into hybrid and EV production. Do you think the American people aren't interested in reducing the risks of John's "corporate wars"? I know that was a prime motivation for my decision to buy a Volt.
"...allowing more safe and responsible drilling at home...."
If that could even possibly exist, it seems to me that it would be more economical to develop alternatives - both in terms of efficiency (e.g., lightweighting) and renewable energy. I just don't buy the "fossil fuel is indispensable" assumption.
Not to mention, all the products you buy required oil at some point in their production and delivery. To remove that oil component is something that cannot be done in just a few years, without going back to the dark ages or worse.
If that could even possibly exist, it seems to me that it would be more economical to develop alternatives
We'll have to see what the market says in that situation. We will never know for sure with all the drilling prohibitions and regulations that have ironically caused riskier deep-water drilling to become more common.
I just don't buy the "fossil fuel is indispensable" assumption.
In the long term, I agree. But in the short term, it is indispensable. Would be nice if it wasn't, though.
Well, you're right - it's a matter of will: "...if they are willing to spend the time and money."
"...all the products you buy required oil at some point in their production and delivery."
Yeah, but the products I buy help show there's a market for sustainable products.
"We'll have to see what the market says in that situation."
Fossil fuels are inherently and pervasively destructive. New methods of fossil extraction are expensive. I don't know that deployment of renewables is more expensive than building a pipeline from Canada to Texas, for example, or sqeezing oil from shale in N. Dakota. I do know that while my Volt was more expensive than a fossil up front, I save $12K over the life of the battery warranty in un-bought gas. It's a wash.
My point, of course, is that fossils are becoming more expensive - and in many more ways than one. There's just this "belief" that fossils are indispensable - and will be for a long time. I'm just not sure that's at all true - especially, if people are willing, and think it's possible.
"Would be nice if it wasn't, though."
Al Gore said in 2008 that it could be done in ten years. Amory Lovins thinks it can be done by 2050. I've effectively done it, personally, already. I'm not a helluva different from my fellow citizens - except perhaps that I consider it "nice" enough to be willing to stretch to make it so.
Yes, for those who can afford it. Some can't, though, even if they wanted to.
There's just this "belief" that fossils are indispensable - and will be for a long time.
Fossil fuels have played such an important role for so long, it may be hard for some to imagine things working differently.
fossils are becoming more expensive
In general, they should, as supplies decrease. They will become more expensive if we stop externalizing costs (pollution), as well. However, as they become more expensive, it will become more economical to extract oil that previously was too expensive to get out of the ground. Also, improving technology will push prices down.
It is happening, and more manufacturers are jumping into the hybrid/EV game. Maybe, it would happen sooner, if more people didn't think fossils were so indispensible. And I have to tell you, even as much as I follow developments, I was shocked to see how much more efficient an electric motor is. We just have to get past this bias for fossil fuels, especially the belief that they are indispensable.
"Fossil fuels have played such an important role for so long, it may be hard for some to imagine things working differently."
Exactly my point. But the issue is more psychological than technological.
"However, as they become more expensive, it will become more economical to extract oil that previously was too expensive to get out of the ground."
But why go that route, even if renewables have only achieved cost parity? And why give China market dominance in renewables? Are we doomed to be an import economy in that arena too? I don't know why we would be so willing to continue to make ourselves so vulnerable.
lol, isn't that the truth!
We don't.
"We can slow and stop the use of fertilizers made from petroleum so farmers can over produce crops and destroy our fresh water supply in the process."
Yep. Biochar displaces petroleum based fertilizers, sequesters carbon, replinishes soil, maximizes the water-holding capability of soil, and produces energy.
"We don't need more oil we need less oil and more green technology use that we already have available."
Yep. The technologies already exist. The only issue is whether we have the will to change.
No doubt. Perhaps, what this military board is recommending will help that. In the meantime, many do have resources to buy sustainable products. I urge people who can to "git 'er done."
Had the military looked at the broader picture, it would have urged an even more rapid shift to clean energy, because of its numerous benefits.
On waste, pyrolysis of organic waste is a win-win in many respects; it can produce renewable energy, bio-asphalt, carbon-negative soil supplements and more, as described in my post Towards a sustainable economy, which recommends implementation of local feebates.
I have looked for sources of biochar, but unfortunately, it is prohibitively expensive - not including shipping. I may start making my own. Still, mass production of biochar is a job-creating industry waiting to happen. Policies, like feebates, could significant speed developments like that.
(from the Wiki)
"The Military Advisory Board is a defense advisory group composed of eleven retired three-star and four-star generals and admirals who were convened to study the implications of global warming for U.S. national security."
"The report was commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses, a government-financed research group"
"CNA's Center for Naval Analyses is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) for the Navy and the Marine Corps."
Statements of group members
"After listening to leaders of the scientific, business, and governmental communities both I and my colleagues came to agree that Global Climate Change is and will be a significant threat to our National Security and in a larger sense to life on earth as we know it to be."
Oh boy, the military industrial complex has spoken ; )
Nope - but when the military tries to take the lead in decreasing the risks of future conflicts, then I'm listening. You're looking forward to paying for more resource wars, John?
"Oh boy, the military industrial complex has spoken"
If the military industrial comples is trying to move us away from future conflicts and vulnerability, and expanding new, sustainable industries in the process, then I stand to be a beneficiary of that process - instead of a victim. Perhaps, you're looking forward to getting zapped by escalating gas prices, or severe weather, or water shortages?
:-)
"Nope - but when the military tries to take the lead in decreasing the risks of future conflicts, then I'm listening."
And you know "the military" is trying "to take the lead in decreasing the risks of future conflicts", because this panel said so? No chance this is a PR stunt, to advance the cause of global domination "the military" has been engaged in along with the powers that be for so long? Seen the error of their milatiristic/war profiteering corpratist ways have they?
You're amusing, Steve, with your anthropomorphizing of just about everything, and your AGW religious fervor . . Amusing but not much of a critical thinker, to my mind.
"Perhaps, you're looking forward to getting zapped by escalating gas prices, or severe weather, or water shortages?
Global warming has stopped. Honest, for well over a decade global temps have not risen. The great AGW con is falling apart. It was a scheme to extract money from us, and propel us toward that top-down totalitarian Global Government, I am rather certain. The very notion that there ever was a meaningful "consensus" about global warming, is a myth, plain and simple. Here is a portion of an April 2010 paper written by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and prominent participant in the IPCC itself;
"Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
The grand "consensus" was really just a consensus among some computer modelers (you know, the "climategate" email guys) . . disingenuously spun up to look like something it never was . .
Oh, that's right. I forgot. You're a conspiracy theorist.
"Global warming has stopped."
Well, not according to science.
The Scientific Consensus Concerning Global Climate Change
"The grand 'consensus' was really just a consensus among some computer modelers..."
Expert credibility in climate change
"...(you know, the "climategate" email guys) . . disingenuously spun up to look like something it never was . ."
"This is the fifth investigation into the science behind the emails, and in every case, the scientists involved have been exonerated."
Many thousands of people are in prison for "conspiracy", and history is simply packed with "conspiracies", and there are cartels and syndicates and Mafias all over the world . . Each instance of "corruption" in Washington (or any Government) involves conspiracy of some sort. It has nothing to do with theory, it's a blatant fact that conspiracy is rampant in this joint, and has been for ages.
You yourself ascribe to the theory that dark forces are conspiring to discredit the AGW juggernaut, but cry conspiracy theorist (like a good little minion ; ) when the very same idea is applied to the global warming clan. This is silliness, I say, many billions of dollars are being made simply because this CO2 thing exists. The very fact that you don't acknowledge the potential that this is a con that worked, renders you too naive to take seriously. The con was based on hyping some computer modeler's "consensus", and parlaying that into a widespread belief that some sort of conclusive proof that humans are catastrophically effecting global climate change had been discovered. A lot of scientists fell for it or went along with it for personal benefit. That is changing, fast, but the media won't be highlighting that change ; )
Translation: every major scientific organization on the planet.
"A lot of scientists fell for it or went along with it for personal benefit. That is changing, fast, but the media won't be highlighting that change"
Every major scientific organization in the world. So in effect, you're claiming that there is no such thing as science - only conspiracies.
Sorry, that is an incredible "conspiracy theory".
How would chemists know if what they were hearing presented with all that fanfare was legit, anymore than a baker? That was the big official "settled" scientific verdict, remember? That was how iot was presented, by the big official UN International Panel of Climate Change, what the hell did you expect them to believe?
"This is the fifth investigation into the science behind the emails, and in every case, the scientists involved have been exonerated."
Exonerated by investigations . . wow, sounds real officious . . You sure are a easy to please . .
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
The head of one "exonerating" committee;
"Lord Oxburgh was identified in the UEA press release as being ‘President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewables’, a company involved in construction and operation of windfarms. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that Lord Oxburgh is also a member of an organisation called GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation or a Balanced Environment) and a member of the Green Fiscal Commission, a body which works to promote environmental taxes."
Real handy having that fellow lead the "exonerating" process. eh?
The head of another "exonerating" committee, Phil Willis, discussing the upcoming inquiry with journalists;
“There are a significant number of climate deniers, who are basically using the UEA emails to support the case this is poor science. We do not believe this is healthy and therefore we want to call in the UEA so that the public can see what they are saying."
Always good to have a guy that casually uses the term 'deniers' leading the exoneration process, eh, Steve?
Here's a little "kicker" that I found particularly amusing. There was a freedom of information request made later, that resulted in some e-mails among the people setting up one of the committees to investigate the climate-gate emails, and we get a peek inside how they went about "stacking the deck", so to speak;
"“Out of these 13 [candidates for the panel], we would hope to get 6 with a suitable range of expertises, and a range of ‘attitudes’ towards recent warming/greenhouse gases – from those who already see it as a problem, but without being right in the middle of the climate science community, to those which [sic] will come to it with a questioning objectivity"
Cute, huh? A range from those who see it as a problem, to those which will come to it with a questioning objectivity ; )
And here's a sample of the "scrutiny" applied to the conduct of the oft exonerated e-mailers themselves;
"On 29 May, Phil Jones, in an email entitled ‘IPCC & FOI’, said the following:
“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.”116
201. The Science and Technology Committee asked the CCE panel to report back conclusively on the question of whether, aside from the six-month statute of limitations, an offence would have taken place under the Freedom of Information Act. 202. The panel concluded that nothing untoward took place:
“There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.”117
203. The second part of this finding is extraordinary, since the email quoted above was clearly a direct response to David Holland’s Freedom of Information request just two days earlier. Even more remarkably at the press conference releasing their report, Muir Russell admitted that Jones had not even been questioned on this subject."
Conclusive exoneration? In the media maybe ... but . .
"The Oxburgh panel’s report consisted of a total of twenty-five paragraphs of text, which barely filled five small pages when printed. Even with the addition of a page listing the panel members and another page and a half of references, its output was widely seen as something of an embarrassment. One American climatologist said in an interview,
“When I first read the report, I thought I was reading the executive summary and proceeded to look for the details; well, there weren’t any. And I was concerned that the report explicitly did not address the key issues that had been raised by the skeptics."
If anyone can stomach it, I suggest a careful reading of the whole thing . . It's pretty telling stuff.
Thing is Steve, when the question is about a potential "culture of corruption" problem, you don't just accept "investigationss" by that culture . . You would surely not accept similar "investigations" findings 100% without skepticism, if done by the so called "deniers" camp . . right? Objectivity is called for in these matters, not "team spirit" for goodness sake . .
And no, there was no "investigation into the science behind the emails", that's silly to even say.
it is not "every scientific organization in the world"
it is basically one organization.
and they did supress information, and censored dissenting opinions (see articles on the nobel winner that returned his award, and the 1000+ scientists that signed a complaint to congress since they dispute the warnings).
you have chosen to take the word of one organization, that falsely claims univerasl support, and ignore the science groups and scientists that were denied dissenting opinions being presented in the 'so-called' reviews.
"I get it, John. You believe all the scientific organizations in the world are involve in some kind of mass conspiracy."
No, you are being naive, I feel.
I believe a conspiracy among some folks involved with the IPCC, to hype some computer modelers work into looking like a "consensus" among the world's leading scientists, was successful. That success led to most scientists believing there was a whole lot more reason to think human activity is having a catastrophic effect on global climate change than is justified by actual scientific research.
No different really, than something like the WMD that were not in Iraq . . but were hyped to appear like a big threat. If you asked scientists at that time, if they felt confident that those WMD were real, they'd surely have been likely to say yes, like most everyone else. Scientists are not supermen, after all, and don't have any magical powers to see behind every deception or PR shenanigan . . They're just people too.
it is basically one organization.
I can see how you might think that, given the strength of the consensus re: global warming. The fact, though, is that the evidence is very strong, such that the scientists describe it as "compelling". They are warning us, much like a doctor might warn you to stop smoking.
"No, you are being naive, I feel."
I understand that you feel that way.
"No different really, than something like the WMD that were not in Iraq . . but were hyped to appear like a big threat. If you asked scientists at that time, if they felt confident that those WMD were real, they'd surely have been likely to say yes, like most everyone else."
If..., if..., if.... No wonder you're a conspiracy theorist - you make things up in your mind, which never happened. Indeed, the experts at the time warned that Iraq had no WMDs. They were told to leave Iraq.
"Scientists are not supermen, after all, and don't have any magical powers to see behind every deception or PR shenanigan . . They're just people too."
Yes, they're just people too. That's why science is what it is - resting primarily on peer review. Suffice it to say here that they are expert people in their respective fields of research. Btw, if your doctor warns you to stop smoking (whatever, you're smoking), try and accept that he is an expert - not a conspiracist.
Gee, that sounds kinda familiar . . .
(Here's some excerpts from a 'NewsWeek' article, in 1975)
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically . . .
"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it . . .
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences . . "
That's when the UN first got involved with saving us from . . well, climate change. Nature did not cooperate so well, what with a warming trend setting in for two decades . . and nature is not cooperating with the diagnosis of Dr. IPCC now.
1. Show me evidence that in 1975, every major scientific organization in the world was warning us about global cooling.
2. In 1979, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences noted, "A plethora of studies from diverse sources indicates a consensus that climate changes will result from man's combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use."
3. Ever heard of Global Dimming?
They don't need any unification of governments to one order of rule, effectively creating common global concerns so people will accept implementation of common global policy. Don't be so silly, John.
Paranoid much?
RMI’s strategic focus is Reinventing Fire: mapping and driving the business-led transition from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewable energy. Key initiatives will focus on the transportation, building, industrial and electricity sectors. RMI’s innovative design techniques optimizewhole-systems, an approach which allows industries to capture benefits that would be left behind under a compartmentalized approach, a discipline we call “tunneling through the cost barrier.â€
While I am not a huge subscriber to global warming, I do think cutting down the use of oil, and fuel, etc would be a good thing, more environmentally friendly. Maybe we could have less oil spills or leaks in the gulf, oceans, etc.....
Going solar, wind powered, etc, would possibly cost more up front, but in the long run it would be much more energy efficient.
However, reducing the usage of fuels could in the end mean lost jobs, and I'm not sure that natural methods would replace the jobs lost in reduction of oil production. Just thinking and musing.......
Mooch
Actually, just the opposite is true. The number of fossil jobs has diminished significantly over the past decades, while a distributed energy system would create many jobs, which are not simply eliminated by technological advances - unless installation and maintenance can be done by robots.