I've been something of a concerned skeptic regarding CO2 emissions and
greenhouse effect on climate change. There's been a fair amount of
hard evidence that the earth is warming up but there has been plenty
of room for doubt whether or not the cause was man made or not.

This new study is significant for a number of reasons: 1) The
scientists conducting the study have heretofore regarded themselves as
skeptics; and 2) Much of their funding comes from the petroleum
industry, in fact, a particularly conservative part of the industry.
In short, this is not good news and we should pay attention regardless
of political beliefs.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

Excerpts from the findings:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause."

"Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it
clear, both on their web site and in the results they've come to, that
funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research,
and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes."

More he

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1

In article ,
says...

I've been something of a concerned skeptic regarding CO2 emissions and
greenhouse effect on climate change. There's been a fair amount of
hard evidence that the earth is warming up but there has been plenty
of room for doubt whether or not the cause was man made or not.

This new study is significant for a number of reasons: 1) The
scientists conducting the study have heretofore regarded themselves as
skeptics; and 2) Much of their funding comes from the petroleum
industry, in fact, a particularly conservative part of the industry.
In short, this is not good news and we should pay attention regardless
of political beliefs.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...s/article.html

Excerpts from the findings:

"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global
warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming
were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely
the cause."

"Despite the special interest of their funders, BEST has made it
clear, both on their web site and in the results they've come to, that
funding sources will not play a role in the results of their research,
and that they "will be presented with full transparency."

"Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for
the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record
of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed
for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the
Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from the 14th century to about
1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past
250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes."

More he

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1

Uh, oh. The hard core righties will surely be going insane over this!
They don't think climate change is happening at all, let alone that man
has a large hand in it.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

On Jul 30, 10:52*am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:
In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. *1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. * His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. * 2) *It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

hopefully common sense will prevail before it's too late.
I was always sceptical about the buying and selling of carbon tax
credits. Here our provincial govt mandated how much power should come
from from renewable sources such as wind farm, hydro electric etc.
The usual problem is that the consumer always pays more... one way or
the other.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.

Yes, it is. The non-science minded right wingers don't realize just the
destruction that a mere degree or so of the averages can do.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:41:24 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Uh, oh. The hard core righties will surely be going insane over this!
They don't think climate change is happening at all, let alone that man
has a large hand in it.

===

It is unfortunate that the issue has become politicized.

On 7/30/12 9:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.



Aren't you a die-hard skeptic because of your investments in fossil fuel?

--
I'm a liberal because militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying
religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy just doesn't work for me.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:41:24 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Uh, oh. The hard core righties will surely be going insane over this!
They don't think climate change is happening at all, let alone that man
has a large hand in it.

===

It is unfortunate that the issue has become politicized.

You bet it is, but the damage is done in that regard.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:03:59 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 7/30/12 9:52 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:13 -0400, wrote:

In summation: Wow, the last skeptic has been drug across the finish
line and now, only now, the "skeptics" believe what virtually every
other scientist has known for years! That, in retrospect, might really
be the bad news.

===

Either way, global warming is probably going to be bad news.

There are several reasons in my opinion why there have been die hard
skeptics, including myself. 1) Al Gore was absolutely the wrong
spokesman for the original message. His overall lack of credibility
and borderline hysteria made him a poor messenger. 2) It is
abundantly clear that there have been many past instances of global
warming/cooling that demonstrably had nothing to do with fossil fuel
emissions.



Aren't you a die-hard skeptic because of your investments in fossil fuel?

===

Not at all. As a matter of fact I've always been an advocate of
alternative energy strategies because I regard it as the right thing
to do for several different reasons.

I'm in a nearly ideal climate for solar power and will probably end up
with panels on my roof one of these days as the total system cost
continues to decrease and reliability/longevity increases. Fossil
fuel is still a good investment however and I'll dedicate some
significant percentage of assets to it as long as the returns are
there. There's only so much oil in the ground and it will continue to
be valuable as a lubricant and industrial feedstock. Additionally,
natural gas could turn out to be the ultimate clean fuel as fuel cell
technology improves and diesel to gas conversion becomes more common.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:08:47 -0400, wrote:

It certainly calls into question the use of ethanol as a fuel.

===

That's a classic example of a scientific issue becoming politicized.
Now we'll have to offer additional agricultural subsidies just to stop
that misguided program.