Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[trysail]

Do you seriously believe that CO2 is the sole forcing in this time series?


http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1979/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg


​

 

[trysail]

Nobody disputes the Tyndall gas effect. That's not what the debate is about. It is plainly evident that climatology does not understand the climate system.


Plants, both through decay and respiration, are responsible for over half of the world’s annual CO2 emissions.

 

[Disgustipated]

This is getting close to never ending. I hope I don't have to put Sonny on ignore...

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=38943218&postcount=23

 

[Peregrinator]

Plants move the same CO2 back and forth.

People dig it up in the form of fossil fuels and aerosolize it.

This is basic stuff you're denying.

As usual, all the primary literature is linked.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm


The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.


Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif


Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif


Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)

 

[trysail]

So what?

That isn't primary stuff; it's copy and paste from John Cook. If you want to drink John Cook's Kool-Aid, help yourself.

Two variables are shown: UAH tropospheric temperature and CO2. If there's an independent variable here, it sure as hell isn't showing itself by correlation:


http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:1979/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/normalise​

Prominent climatologists admit they are at a loss to explain why their forecasts ( and the models ) were wrong:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/candid-comments-from-global-warming-scientists/

Kevin Trenberth: The hiatus [in warming] was not unexpected. Variability in the climate can suppress rising temperatures temporarily, though before this decade scientists were uncertain how long such pauses could last. In any case, one decade is not long enough to say anything about human effects on climate; as one forthcoming paper lays out, 17 years is required

J[udith] C[urry] question for Kevin Trenberth: Please remind me of when you first thought there would be a hiatus in the warming.

 

[Sean]

This is awesome.

I told you yanks don't understand irony.

 

[trysail]

Data from the BEST series plotted against CO2.

What do you think the r-squared is?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/best/from:1979/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979


​

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1979/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:1979

 

[trysail]

In point of fact, the BEST series doesn't show any warming at all for the past 31 years. Zero. None. Nil. Nada.

Isn't that interesting?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/best/from:1979/normalise


​

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1979/normalise

 

[RightField]

I built a firepit in the hopes of stimulating global warming. The medieval warm epoch produced a bounty of creativity, art and riches that we need again today. It was warm enough that Greenland was actually green and not a frozen rock. We need a "stimulus" like global warming to help our economy rebound. In the meantime, pass the Corona and push that log back into the middle of the fire. Wouldn't it be fine to grow palm trees in DC?

 

[phrodeau]

I built a firepit in the hopes of stimulating global warming. The medieval warm epoch produced a bounty of creativity, art and riches that we need again today. It was warm enough that Greenland was actually green and not a frozen rock. We need a "stimulus" like global warming to help our economy rebound. In the meantime, pass the Corona and push that log back into the middle of the fire. Wouldn't it be fine to grow palm trees in DC?

Didn't we just cover this in class? Burning lumber doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere, burning fossil fuels does. If you burn lumber instead of fossil fuels, you might reduce global warming.

 

[phrodeau]

And if you think CO2 is harmless, put that firepit in your living room.

 

[trysail]

The "Hockeystick"
The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade
By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.

The basics of science involve a number of simple rules, a healthy skepticism, and a guiding principle of letting the data settle the disputes. Data need to be checked and validated, measurements need to be explained and justified, as well as the calculational techniques described. Replication of the results by others is essential, as are the analyses of measuring errors and uncertainties.

The issues regarding climate change have not been sufficiently scrutinized. Errors, misstatements, partial statements, evasions, and lack of cooperation and candor, even ad hominem attacks are used by the proponents of global warming instead. Senators Rockefeller (D-VA) and Snowe (R-ME) called for the suppression of skeptics. Others suggest that Nuremberg Trials be held for them. Science is not conducted that way.

This international global warming lobby is large, organized, heavily funded, and mean. Whatever their the agenda may be, it is not science. Their actions are reminiscent of earlier arrogant powers imprisoning and suppressing Galileo or Giordano Bruno's burning at the stake for the heresy of suggesting that the Earth was not the center of the Universe.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a UN organization formed within the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). This should sound alarms for those familiar with the politics of some of the power brokers within the UN itself. Many are decidedly anti-capitalist and anti-American. For example, consider the statement of Maurice Strong made at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: "Isn't the ONLY hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" At the time Strong was a UN policy maker and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. He has had the ear of the UN Secretary General for years.

About every 5 years the IPCC has issued assessments of the global climate. The Fourth Assessment is due out in several months while a Summary for Policy Makers is now released. This in itself is a very strange way to handle the release of what should be a straight forward scientific document. These documents should have been released simultaneously. Given the UN's history and agendas, one now suspects that political revisions are taking place.

Remarkably, the IPCC in this Fourth Assessment is backing away from its early climate predictions. According to Peter du Pont, while Al Gore and his alarmist movie circle the globe with predictions of 20 foot sea level rises, the IPCC has halved it earlier predictions of sea level rise for this century from 36 inches to 17 inches, in the next 100 years. 100 year predictions of nearly anything are ludicrous. They can also be fun because they produce big numbers and scary numbers. That 17 inch increase in sea level may still be too large.

Climatologist Robert Balling points out that the sea level as been rising about 1.5 mm/yr for the last 8000 years; some say as much as 20,000 years. If this rate of increase were to continue for 100 years more, it would amount to about 6 inches. Given the Dutch ingenuity with holding back the sea, I think we can adjust for a 6 inch rise. A 6 inch high "tidal wave" dribbling into Lower Manhattan suddenly isn't so scary, either. We can also marvel at the roaring successes of Al Gore's fantasies, which are void of such mundane scientific evidence.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis study “Climate Change and its Impacts”, the ice mass of Greenland has actually grown 2 inches per year between 1993 and 2003. Additionally, during the past 30 years the ice mass of Antarctica has grown as well. This is not the stuff of alarm and not the source of global flooding.

The lack of scientific integrity permeates the global warming movement and can be traced to include the IPCC itself. In the Third Assessment Report of 2001, the IPCC published and repeatedly presented what has become known as the "Hockeystick". This is a graphical representation, shaped like a hockeystick, of the global temperatures for the last 1000 years. It was published in the science journal Nature as a two-part reconstruction of the temperatures over the past 1000 years.

The statistical studies used to produce the chart were extremely dense technically, using logically opaque and obscure statistical techniques. It was so opaque that the editors of Nature as well as its peer reviewers were not able to reconstruct the data and computing efforts needed to generate the "Hockeystick". This is not the way peer review is supposed to work.

Worse, the chart was enthusiastically adopted by the authors of the IPCC, and published in its Third Assessment Report apparently without review. Worse still, many foreign governments adopted the chart as gospel as they addressed their national policies toward "global warming", and mitigation efforts. It turns out that the hockeystick wasn't gospel at all.

Incredibly, there were two individuals, Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre (the M&M of the M&M Project), two Canadians researchers who had the wits, statistical and computer skills, and doggedness to unravel the complex data and the obscure statistical techniques used to construct the "Hockeystick'. Their efforts were obstructed at many steps along the way by the IPCC studies' authors. This opposition is an intellectual red-flag indicating that something--perhaps politics, funding, or fame-- besides good science was involved. Good scientists welcome replication and solid reviews.

What M&M found in the statistics behind the infamous IPCC chart serves as a great example of international scientific fraud and malpractice. That this flawed chart now drives energy policy in many nations is frightening.

M&M have given the world a classic example of what true science is about: Skilled individuals unraveling confusing data and analytical techniques and finding the errors. It has happened many times in our history. Heavy prices have been paid for challenging prevailing dogmas. The world owes a great debt of gratitude to both McKitrick and McIntyre for their unique and powerful efforts and their extraordinary findings.

Temperature proxy data from the past 1000 years was needed to construct the 'hockeystick" curve. Actual temperature measurements could not be made during much of this time simply because the thermometer wasn't invented until 1709. Such thermometers were not widely used for decades and the concept of heat was unknown (Fourier provided the Laws of Heat Transfer much later) so that actual climate temperature data did not systematically begin for another 200 years. Thus proxies such as core samples and tree rings were used.

What McKitrick and McIntyre have found in their hockeystick analysis is shattering and profound. It destroys the credibility and integrity of the IPCC, the editors of Nature magazine, and the 2500 hundred or so members of a so-called consensus of climate experts. M&M have once again shown that consensus is not science.

The authors of the hockeystick chart did not indicate finding the well known Medieval Warming Period (WMP) when temperatures were higher than they are now. They did not find the well-known Little Ice Age lasting from the 1500s to the 1800s, when temperatures were lower than now. The warming shown in the 20th century was not consistent with other data, such as the 50 years of balloon data. Their work has been a series of lessons learned about incompatibilities of politics and science. They don't mix.

Since the findings of M&M are not well known one might suspect that the climate experts don't agree with them. As a matter of fact, many do agree with M&M and have said so. For example, McKitrick has received many communications from climatologists from around the world who have expressed support for his findings.

According to McKitrick, "Since our work has begun to appear we have enjoyed the satisfaction of knowing we are winning over the expert community, one at a time. Physicist Richard Muller of Berkeley studied our work last year and wrote an article about it: '[The findings] hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others.' Suddenly, the hockeystick, the poster child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics."

He goes on: "In an article in the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, Dr. Rob van Dorland of the Dutch National Meteorological Agency commented 'It is strange that that the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it. I think this issue will be on the agenda of the next IPCC meeting in Peking this May.' "

McKitrick continues: "In February 2005 the German television channel Das Erste interviewed climatologist Ulrich Cubasch, who revealed that he too had been unable to replicate the hockey stick. He (climatologist Ulrich Cubasch) discussed with his co-workers - and many of his professional colleagues - the objections, and sought to work them through. Bit by bit, it became clear also to his colleagues: the two Canadians were right (M&M). Between 1400 and 1600, the temperature shift was considerably higher than, for example, in the previous century. With that, the core conclusion, and that also of the IPCC 2001 Report, was completely undermined."

McKitrick continues: "Recently we (M&M) received an e-mail from Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of the Royal Meteorological Institute of the Netherlands. He wrote: 'The IPCC review process is fatally flawed.... . The scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocols is grossly inadequate.' "

Of course the likes of Al Gore and Hollywood are beyond hope when it comes to scientific skills. It is beyond comprehension just how Gore, Hollywood, and the media have not asked to sit down and confront other valid, defensible, yet opposing points of view. They have simply started with their conclusion that doom is imminent, and ignored all evidence which doesn't support it. And there is lots of such evidence.


http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/system/old/GrassrootPerspective/HockeyStickScandal.shtml

 

[RightField]

Didn't we just cover this in class? Burning lumber doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere, burning fossil fuels does. If you burn lumber instead of fossil fuels, you might reduce global warming.

Why Does Burning Wood & Burning Fossil Fuels Produce Similar Pollutants?
By John Brennan, eHow Contributor

Wood Fireplace Combustion is a common type of chemical reaction.

Humans have burned wood for energy since prehistory. In more modern times, however, wood has largely been supplanted by fossil fuels. Although fossil fuels, unlike wood, are a nonrenewable resource, burning both wood and fossil fuels can release some of the same pollutants. This similarity stems from the nature of the chemical reactions that take place when burning these fuels for energy.

Combustion

Combustion is a type of chemical reaction in which a fuel is oxidized to release energy in the form of heat and light. The standard chemical equation for a combustion reaction is CxHyOz + O2 --> CO2 + H20, where the ratio(x, y and z) of hydrogens (H) to carbons (C) to oxygens (O) in the fuel varies depending on the material. The chemical products of a complete combustion reaction are carbon dioxide and water.

Carbon Dioxide

Wood is a complex mixture of many different types of molecules, some of which burn well while others do not. Like fossil fuels, wood contains many carbon compounds. One carbon compound found in wood, for example, is a polymer called cellulose, a long string of simple sugars linked together to form a chain. Cellulose helps give rigidity to plant cell walls; wood is rich in cellulose. Cellulose has the chemical formula (C6H10O5)n , where n is the number of subunits in the chain. During combustion, the carbon in these compounds combines with oxygen, just as the carbon in a mixture of hydrocarbons like gasoline or coal react with oxygen to form CO2.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (chemical formula: CO) is a product of incomplete combustion. If there's too little oxygen present or if combustion takes place at extremely high temperatures, the reaction may not go all the way to completion and some carbon monoxide is produced instead of CO2. Since both wood or fossil fuels burn in conditions where there's oxygen present but not enough to ensure the reaction goes to completion, both wood burning and fossil fuels can release carbon monoxide.

Nitrogen Oxides

When fuels burn at very high temperatures in the presence of excess air, some of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air can combine to form nitrogen oxides (compounds with the formula NOx). The high temperature inside the cylinders of a car engine provides the right conditions for this reaction to occur; wood burning can release nitrogen oxides as well (although much less of the gas). Nitrogen dioxide is the principal component of smog.

Particulate Matter

Small solid or liquid particles like dust and soot can be released and become airborne during combustion of some materials; this kind of pollutant is called particulate matter. Although gasoline combustion releases less particulate matter than wood burning, sulfur in gasoline can nonetheless combine with oxygen during combustion to form other compounds that become particulate matter.

Read more: Why Does Burning Wood & Burning Fossil Fuels Produce Similar Pollutants? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6657743_burning-fuels-produce-similar-pollutants_.html#ixzz1cO4VCaZ2

 

[RightField]

And if you think CO2 is harmless, put that firepit in your living room.

It's tons of stone, impractical to put it in the living room or back porch. Weren't CO2 levels in the atmosphere much higher in earlier epochs?

 

[mercury14]

Why Does Burning Wood & Burning Fossil Fuels Produce Similar Pollutants?
By John Brennan, eHow Contributor

Wood Fireplace Combustion is a common type of chemical reaction.

Humans have burned wood for energy since prehistory. In more modern times, however, wood has largely been supplanted by fossil fuels. Although fossil fuels, unlike wood, are a nonrenewable resource, burning both wood and fossil fuels can release some of the same pollutants. This similarity stems from the nature of the chemical reactions that take place when burning these fuels for energy.

Combustion

Combustion is a type of chemical reaction in which a fuel is oxidized to release energy in the form of heat and light. The standard chemical equation for a combustion reaction is CxHyOz + O2 --> CO2 + H20, where the ratio(x, y and z) of hydrogens (H) to carbons (C) to oxygens (O) in the fuel varies depending on the material. The chemical products of a complete combustion reaction are carbon dioxide and water.

Carbon Dioxide

Wood is a complex mixture of many different types of molecules, some of which burn well while others do not. Like fossil fuels, wood contains many carbon compounds. One carbon compound found in wood, for example, is a polymer called cellulose, a long string of simple sugars linked together to form a chain. Cellulose helps give rigidity to plant cell walls; wood is rich in cellulose. Cellulose has the chemical formula (C6H10O5)n , where n is the number of subunits in the chain. During combustion, the carbon in these compounds combines with oxygen, just as the carbon in a mixture of hydrocarbons like gasoline or coal react with oxygen to form CO2.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (chemical formula: CO) is a product of incomplete combustion. If there's too little oxygen present or if combustion takes place at extremely high temperatures, the reaction may not go all the way to completion and some carbon monoxide is produced instead of CO2. Since both wood or fossil fuels burn in conditions where there's oxygen present but not enough to ensure the reaction goes to completion, both wood burning and fossil fuels can release carbon monoxide.

Nitrogen Oxides

When fuels burn at very high temperatures in the presence of excess air, some of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air can combine to form nitrogen oxides (compounds with the formula NOx). The high temperature inside the cylinders of a car engine provides the right conditions for this reaction to occur; wood burning can release nitrogen oxides as well (although much less of the gas). Nitrogen dioxide is the principal component of smog.

Particulate Matter

Small solid or liquid particles like dust and soot can be released and become airborne during combustion of some materials; this kind of pollutant is called particulate matter. Although gasoline combustion releases less particulate matter than wood burning, sulfur in gasoline can nonetheless combine with oxygen during combustion to form other compounds that become particulate matter.

Read more: Why Does Burning Wood & Burning Fossil Fuels Produce Similar Pollutants? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6657743_burning-fuels-produce-similar-pollutants_.html#ixzz1cO4VCaZ2

And burning timber still doesn't increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Was that C&P supposed to say otherwise?

 

[patrick1]

The "Hockeystick"
The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade
By Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.

Interesting to note that this article was published in February 2007. Why post it here now? There has been plenty of research about the hockey stick since then. Not much of it favourable to this point of view. Mostly supporting the hockey stick view.

It's not entirely clear what scientific background Micheal R Fox has. He's expressed strong opinions about the benefits of George W Bush's tax cuts too. Oh, and global smoking. His 1999 paper Toxic Toxicology expressed strong doubts about the carcinogenic nature of toxins in cigarette smoke. His website http://foxreport.org has been quiet of late.

Patrick

 

[richard_daily]

Do you seriously believe that CO2 is the sole forcing in this time series?




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg


​

Take the average from your own graph from 2001-2010... is the temperature climbing or lowering?

Please let me know once you've been able to figure it out.

 

[thør]

And burning timber still doesn't increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Was that C&P supposed to say otherwise?

Looks like he was responding to a post that said "Burning lumber doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere, burning fossil fuels does. If you burn lumber instead of fossil fuels, you might reduce global warming."

Similar arguments come from biofuel users where they believe that because they use biofuels, they don't increase CO2 levels. Seems to me that if you burn a fuel, then you increase CO2 levels.

 

[patrick1]

In point of fact, the BEST series doesn't show any warming at all for the past 31 years. Zero. None. Nil. Nada.

Isn't that interesting?

Trysail, I think yours is a misunderstanding of one very particular graph. The BEST series does appear to show a 'trend' of increase: but the data can be read a lot of ways, that's why this stuff is hard and in dispute. Why do you keep being so adamant? With this 'in point of fact' invective? How does that help us resolve disagreements?

Other readers - if there are any! - have a look at www.woodfortrees.org, I have a lot of sympathy for the guy behind that website, he's 'green' but seems genuinely to be looking at the data fair and square. As shown by the fact he's being quoted here by people he probably disagrees with!

Patrick.

 

[mercury14]

Similar arguments come from biofuel users where they believe that because they use biofuels, they don't increase CO2 levels. Seems to me that if you burn a fuel, then you increase CO2 levels.

That's not how it works. Trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as carbon. When the tree is burned (oxidized) or it dies and rots, the carbon is converted carbon back into CO2, thus the cycle.

So the CO2 levels don't increase when you burn bio-fuels since the release is equal to what the plant just absorbed.

 

[thør]

That's not how it works. Trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as carbon. When the tree is burned (oxidized) or it dies and rots, the carbon is converted carbon back into CO2, thus the cycle.

So the CO2 levels don't increase when you burn bio-fuels since the release is equal to what the plant just absorbed.

Provided the biofuels grow fast enough.

I counted the rings on a tree I cut down near my cabin and it was right at 150 years old. That tree isn't going to provide heat for 150 years. If I wouldn't have cut it down, it might have fallen and taken 50 or so years to decompose. As it is, it's going to be oxidized in my Quadrafire stove and might provide two to three weeks of heat in winter. I would say that's I've upset the balance.

 

[Peregrinator]

So what?

That isn't primary stuff; it's copy and paste from John Cook. If you want to drink John Cook's Kool-Aid, help yourself.

Tripati and Ghosh are not John Cook. The primary literature is LINKED in the article written by Cook. That's not beyond your understanding is it? Now that I've said it twice, do you get it?

Here are the links, separate from the Cook article, just to make it even clearer.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

 

[Peregrinator]

Interesting to note that this article was published in February 2007. Why post it here now? There has been plenty of research about the hockey stick since then. Not much of it favourable to this point of view. Mostly supporting the hockey stick view.

It's not entirely clear what scientific background Micheal R Fox has. He's expressed strong opinions about the benefits of George W Bush's tax cuts too. Oh, and global smoking. His 1999 paper Toxic Toxicology expressed strong doubts about the carcinogenic nature of toxins in cigarette smoke. His website http://foxreport.org has been quiet of late.

Patrick

120. Dr. Michael R. Fox, retired nuclear scientist who holds a PhD in physical chemistry and is a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.
http://www.grassrootinstitute.org/bios/fox.shtml

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/enviro...g-deniers-scientists-46011008-2#ixzz1cPlbqpkg


Wiki, grassroots institute:

The stated purpose of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to improve the relationship between the government and the people with the objective of improving the effectiveness of the government, the business climate, and in some cases, tradition, to foster an atmosphere in Hawaii that results in maximum personal freedom for every individual.The mission of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii is to promote individual liberty, the free market, and limited, accountable government. Through research papers, policy briefings, commentaries and conferences, the Institute seeks to educate and inform Hawaii's policymakers, news media and the general public.

No agenda at all there.

 

[Peregrinator]

Provided the biofuels grow fast enough.

I counted the rings on a tree I cut down near my cabin and it was right at 150 years old. That tree isn't going to provide heat for 150 years. If I wouldn't have cut it down, it might have fallen and taken 50 or so years to decompose. As it is, it's going to be oxidized in my Quadrafire stove and might provide two to three weeks of heat in winter. I would say that's I've upset the balance.

That's why it's often phrased as "human activity" rather than "humans burning oil."

Deforestation is a double whammy.

 

[phrodeau]

Provided the biofuels grow fast enough.

I counted the rings on a tree I cut down near my cabin and it was right at 150 years old. That tree isn't going to provide heat for 150 years. If I wouldn't have cut it down, it might have fallen and taken 50 or so years to decompose. As it is, it's going to be oxidized in my Quadrafire stove and might provide two to three weeks of heat in winter. I would say that's I've upset the balance.

The balance is between CO2 levels before the tree started to grow, and after it was burned. No difference.