Global warming advocates ignore the boulders

This link is to a George Will op-ed column in the Washington Post. It contains lots of details, many presented in a sarcastic way that made me smile. It also contains lots of links for those who wish to delve deeper into his details.

The link I found fascinating is the admission by Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, that there has been NO statistically significant global warming from 1995 to the present.

And as if things aren't bad enough for global warming advocates, read the NY Times analysis of why Yvo de Boer resigned as UN Climate Chief.

REDD and the amended Lacey Act

This link is to an article on the World Resources Institute site (WRI).
"On May 22, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed a landmark amendment to the 100 year-old Lacey Act, originally enacted to prohibit the transportation of illegally captured animals or wildlife products across state lines. The new law extended this protection to plants - including timber, paper, and other forest products - thereby giving the U.S. government a powerful tool to eliminate illegally sourced wood and increase transparency in the global forest product supply chain."

The article highlights the first enforcement action under the amended Lacey Act, and also points out that the Act could have a significant impact in reducing illegal timber cutting in developing countries.  REDD is the widely adopted acronym for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. UN-REDD was probably one of the Copenhagen convention's most agreed upon approaches to slow global warming.

At the WRI site you can also find a concise legal interpretation of the Copenhagen Accord.

Copenhagen and Beyond, a NY Times perspective

This link was pointed out by Roz Troupin. It is somewhat different from the previous post's main link in that it has more focus on the key role played by the US, and more details about what lies ahead for the US. You may have to register with the NY Times to read it (first time I did not need to register, 2nd time I did need to, but it is free and simple).

Thin climate accord - A Copenhagen Summary

The above link is to a AP article with a summary of what was, and was not, accomplished in Copenhagen. It also highlights the enormous tasks ahead for all countries.

Key points of the 2 1/2 page Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding agreement by most of the nations attending, are summarized as follows:

_Nations agreed to cooperate in reducing emissions, "with a view" to scientists' warnings to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above preindustrial levels, that is, 1.3 degrees C (2.3 degrees F) above today's average temperatures.

_Developing nations will report every two years on their voluntary actions to reduce emissions. Those reports would be subject to "international consultations and analysis" — a concession by China to the U.S.

_Richer nations will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year program to fund poorer nations' projects to deal with drought and other climate-change impacts, and to develop clean energy.

_They also set a "goal" of mobilizing $100 billion-a-year by 2020 for the same adaptation and mitigation purposes.

Trusting Nature as the Climate Referee

The above link to the Science page of the NY Times was supplied by Roz Troupin. It contains a proposal to base a carbon tax on any increase in the Earth's troposphere temperature near the Equator. The rational is that, if the skeptics are correct and the earth is not warming, then no one will have to pay any special carbon taxes (or cap-and-trade costs). But if the earth continues to warm, then the tax will be increased to cover costs of developing low carbon energy sources, and costs of dealing with climate change effects.

At the end of the article is a link to comments about this proposal. I feel most pertinent of these is that the proposed temperature change index has too much lag and variability built into it, and any revenue generated, if the earth continues to warm, will be generated too late to avert any disasters of continued warming. On the plus side, letting Nature make the decisions (she does not go up for re-election) certainly beats letting the politicians and Climate-Gate scientists make the decisions. Perhaps using the new Climate Change Index would make more sense, because it responds much more rapidly than just air temperature, and it incorporates 4 factors as opposed to just one.

Overall, a very interesting concept. Thanks Roz.

More on 'Climate-Gate' from the WSJ

Concerning the leaked emails of prominent climate scientists (Penn State's Michael Mann et al):

"A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

".............. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."

Unethical Behavior - 'Climate-gate'

This link to FoxNews contain many quotes from the hacked documents of prominent climate researchers. Even as a believer that global warming is taking place, I certainly find many of the quotes presented as sound examples of unethical behavior. The following quote sums up the suppression of skeptical views:

"Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical."" (bold type by me). Bill

Must Reads for Copenhagen

Whew! This is one heck of an assignment. Gordon, think you can finish all these by December?

Seriously, it is great to have a summary by a climate expert for each of these recommended books, and scanning through these summaries, I see several books I will be reading.

Also, Gordon and I will also be happy to make class time available to anyone who wants to read and present their summary of one of these books. Bill