http://tribes.tribe.net/america/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#0ff991ce-1e95-4693-b5b6-42d5ea43e1f3 CNN LARRY KING LIVE Could Global Warming Kill Us? Aired January 31, 2007 - 21:00 ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. LARRY KING, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, what is global warming? Could it really kill us all, submerge cities like New York and Washington and San Francisco under floods from melting Arctic ice caps? Cause deadly heat waves lasting weeks? Would such a disaster be manmade? Why have several presidential contenders sounded the global warming alarm this week on Capitol Hill? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The argument about climate change is over. SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: This is a problem whose time has come. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Global warming -- how scared should we be? Find out next on LARRY KING LIVE. There couldn't be a more important topic than your children's future. That's what we're talking about with global warming. We have an outstanding panel. They are, in Atlanta, Heidi Cullen. Dr. Cullen is a climate expert for The Weather Channel, host of "The Climate Code." In Los Angeles with us here is Bill Nye, the famed "Science Guy." He's a scientist, engineer, best-selling author, Emmy winning television personality and he's on the national advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. In Watertown, Massachusetts is Richard Lindzen. He's the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT. He's author of the op-ed pieces "There Is No Consensus On Global Warming" and "Climate of Fear," both published in the "Wall Street Journal." And in London, Julian Morris, executive director, International Policy Network. He's an economist. His thesis is on the economics of climate change. All right, Heidi Cullen, first, before we start, the global warming is a hot issue, major, in part, because of the documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which is nominated for an Oscar. It's Al Gore's documentary. Let's take a quick look. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP FROM "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH," COURTESY PARAMOUNT CLASSICS) AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Arctic is experiencing faster melting. If this were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet. This is what would happen in Florida. Around Shanghai, home to 40 million people. The area around Calcutta, 60 million. Here's Manhattan. The World Trade Center Memorial would be underwater. Think of the impact of couple hundred thousand refugees and then imagine 100 million. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: All right, Heidi, is he on together? HEIDI CULLEN, WEATHER CHANNEL CLIMATE EXPERT, HOST, "THE CLIMATE CODE": I think the documentary is very well done and he really hits the science issues and he captures them very nicely. And I think that the sea level rise issue is especially one that needs to be discussed and we need to talk about more in the sense that it sounds like this creeping issue that's far off in the future, but it's something that once we reach a point of warmer temperatures where we're pretty much locked into -- to ice caps melting -- and a lot of the new science that's come out recently suggests that sea ice is melting faster than we ever thought. So, you know, not to be alarmist or to draw some kind of a catastrophe scenario, but the sea level rise issue is a very big one. KING: Bill Nye, what is global warming? Is it real? BILL NYE, "THE SCIENCE GUY," SCIENTIST, BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, TV PERSONALITY: I think it's real. I'm sure it's real. It's where we have put so much -- so many greenhouse gasses, so many molecules of greenhouse gases... KING: We being man? NYE: Humans, extra ones, that the speed that the world is getting warmer is getting really fast. And what's happening is these molecules hold heat in, in the same way glass holds heat in a greenhouse. That's where we got the name. KING: Are we talking about one degree over 1,000 years? NYE: Those were the good old days. Yes. Now it's -- everybody's concerned about a little more than two degrees Fahrenheit, about 1.2 degrees Celsius, in the next 50 years. So... KING: And that's bad why? NYE: Oh, that's bad for a couple of reasons. The world -- the weather around the world is going to change. Then you used a clip from "An Inconvenient Truth" where ice caps are melting and that fresh water flows into the sea. That upsets the flow of so-called thermohaline or salt heat driven ocean currents... KING: Meaning? NYE: Meaning -- that's what makes the Gulf Stream go, for example. And if the Gulf Stream stops... KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) control the whole ecosystem? NYE: Oh, yes. It would be crazy. And then the other thing is, the ocean will actually get bigger. When it gets warmer, warm things expand and (UNINTELLIGIBLE). KING: Lindzen, Richard Lindzen, I read your pieces in the "Wall Street Journal." They were very authoritative and very well written. What's your read on this? RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE: Well, I think my read on it is that there is a certain climate of fear, to quote Mike Creighton. You know, for instance, Nye was talking about fresh water perhaps shutting down the Gulf Stream. But that isn't what physical oceanographers think. First of all, you know, we've measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes. It's almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down, you'd have to stop the rotation of the Earth or shut off the wind. And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. KING: Julian Morris in London, executive director, International Policy Network, is it much ado about nothing or should we be concerned? JULIAN MORRIS, ECONOMIST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL POLICY NETWORK: Well, I think it's worth comparing the real problems which are facing the world today with the scenarios that are being predicted for the future. Every year, at the moment, about 10 million children die of preventable and curable diseases, and yet we're concerned that some time far in the future, a few hundred thousand people, maybe a few million people, at most, might suffer in some unknown way as a result of climate change. But the same people who predict massive climate changes also predict that in order for those climate changes to occur, we would have had enormous amounts of economic growth. So the poorest people in the world will no longer be poor. In fact, they will be richer than the richest people in the world are today. Average per capita incomes in the poorest parts of the world are less than $1,000 U.S. per year per capita. In 50 years time, those are predicted to be greater than the current levels for the richest part of the world, i.e. more than about $30,000 U.S. which is average per capita income in places like the U.K. and other parts of Europe... KING: So... MORRIS: So the question is... KING: So what the environment is doing will be meaningless to them? MORRIS: Well, the reality is that in the future, people will be wealthy enough to adapt to pretty much... KING: Wow! MORRIS: ... any change that is likely to happen. KING: I see. MORRIS: I mean, barring absolute global catastrophe, we'll be able to manage the situation. KING: I've got you. MORRIS: So the question is, is whether we want to spend vast resources today to prevent something that might happen way downstream in the future. KING: All right, let me get a break. Coming up a little later, two U.S. senators square off on this issue. Things could get really heat in our hot -- rather, heat up in our D.C. studios. We'll be back with our panel in a couple of minutes. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: Before we continue with this terrific panel, I understand we had some sort of weird occurrence in Boston today. Anderson Cooper is on top of the scene. What happened? ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Larry, it was, indeed, weird. A huge mess in Boston today. A publicity stunt gone terribly awry. It began when more than a half dozen suspicious devices were found around the city. Alert residents notified authorities and the resulting bomb scare shut down part of the city. Streets were closed, subway service was suspended as police scrambled to respond. In the end, it wasn't terrorism. The suspicious devices were electronic light boards depicting a cartoon character. They were intended as a promotion campaign for a late night adult cartoon "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." It's owned by the Turner Broadcasting System, which is, of course, the parent company of CNN. The bomb scare was followed by a wave of outrage and now an arrest. At a press conference a few months ago, authorities announced they've arrested Peter Berdovsky, an Arlington, Massachusetts artist who allegedly placed the electronic devices in and around Boston today. The investigation is ongoing, say authorities. In a statement, the Turner Broadcasting System said, and I quote: "We apologize to the citizens of Boston that part of a marking campaign was mistaken for a public danger. We appreciate the gravity of the situation and like any responsible company would, are putting all necessary resources toward understanding the facts surrounding it as quickly as possible." This story, of course, still developing. We're going to be covering it all on "360," coming up at 10:00 p.m. Eastern -- Larry. KING: Thanks, Anderson. Anderson Cooper on that kind of strange story in Boston. We're back with our outstanding panel. We took our cameras out on the street today and asked people on Hollywood Boulevard what they think global warming is. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Global warming is something that is going on on the Earth. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Earth's temperatures are getting warmer gradually over time and that's being caused by human interaction. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's overheating. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's going to affect our future. It's going to affect our children's future. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think people are slowly becoming more aware about it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's tons of solutions that we're not using. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: All right, Heidi Cullen, Richard Lindzen says it's not a fact and Julian Morris says it doesn't really matter if it is, economically we'll overcome it. What do you say to that? CULLEN: Well, I think the truth is that it is, indeed, a fact. We've got a very big IPCC. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change will be coming out with a report on Friday that's very much meant to be the state of the science of global warming. And, you know, the evidence is now overwhelming. The planet has warmed up about 1.3 degrees over the past 100 years. Observational data suggest that extreme events are getting worse. We're seeing more droughts, we're seeing more heat waves. So while I think science is a process and we're learning more every day, scientists are very much trying to keep up with what our climate is doing and how our climate is changing. But the bottom line is global warming is real. And I do think that to make this argument that we have to prioritize this list and that to focus on global warming would be -- would be a mistake is -- it's sort of a fore -- it's just -- it's a false argument in the sense that global warming is one of these issues that technology exists to deal with it and our economy is ultimately very linked to our environment. So to say that it would hurt the economy or that it's not worth putting any stress on the economy is to kind of make a false argument. KING: Yes. Bill Nye, where is Richard Lindzen wrong? NYE: Well, he -- I'm not sure, because I'm not -- I'm not an expert on his ideas. But the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC report, which comes out Friday, is pretty compelling. And, as you know, I'm a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists and I find my colleagues pretty compelling, much more so than his -- his view is -- is a minority on a scale that's -- that's impressive. It's probably 100,000 to one or so, scientists versus him. KING: All right, Richard, are you... NYE: But I don't want it to get to be a personal attack. And... KING: OK, Richard, are you -- are you one of the alone ones in this? LINDZEN: You know, on what I was just saying, I was saying textbook material. And if the textbooks are out voiced by environmental advocacy groups like Union of Concerned Scientists by 100,000 to one, that would be bizarre. We should close down our schools. This makes no sense, what Mr. Nye is saying. I'm simply saying his comments about the Gulf Stream are wrong. And his comments about heat transport are wrong. And that is not 100,000 to one. That is... NYE: Yes, just to clarify, I said that -- Larry asked me about fresh water falling on the ocean. LINDZEN: Yes. NYE: That's what I'm saying. LINDZEN: And fresh water... NYE: That would be the ultimate consequence. LINDZEN: Yes. And all I'm saying is the thermohaline circulation is not the major driver of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is not what people are... NYE: So you're saying that we shouldn't be concerned about global climate change because... LINDZEN: Nobody is saying... NYE: ... wind developments the -- the Gulf Stream? LINDZEN: Nobody it saying anything... NYE: That's not enough for me. LINDZEN: Well, nobody is saying anything of the sort. We are simply saying that if you wish to issue scare remarks, you should make them accurate, according to the science. NYE: So it will be very dangerous if the world gets two degrees Fahrenheit warmer in, say, the next 50 years? LINDZEN: Well... NYE: It will be dangerous for almost everybody. LINDZEN: In what sense? NYE: Now, do you disagree with that? LINDZEN: Yes, of course, I do. I mean there is no study that suggests that two degrees Fahrenheit will make the world appreciably more dangerous. It will... KING: All right, I've got to break in here. We'll come right back. Our panel will be with us the whole way, but we've got two United States senators who are going to take a look at this and then we'll come back with our panel and pick right up, too, with Julian Morris. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: To debate this issue, two outstanding members of the United States Senate, Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. She's chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee. And James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, ranking minority member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, former chairman of that committee. Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer chair an Environment & Public Works Committee hearing on climate change. Among those that testified were Senators McCain and Obama. Also speaking on the issue was committee member Hillary Clinton. President Bush made a reference to climate change in his recent State of the Union. Let's listen then get our senators' thoughts. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's in our vital interests to diversify America's energy supply. The way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy and clean, safe, nuclear power. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Senator Barbara Boxer, are we in a panic situation? SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CF), CHAIR, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: Not at all, Larry. And if anyone watched that marvelous hearing we had yesterday, where we really heard from a third of the senators, there's really a climate of hope, not fear, because we are listening to the scientists and, yes, there are always a few who are the naysayers, just like there were people who said the Earth is flat. But eventually there's a consensus. I'm a policymaker. I can't turn my back on 11 National Academies of Sciences and the world scientists who were promoed today at "USA Today." They're going to come out with a report. So we know there's a consensus that has built and I'm not going to debate anymore whether this is happening. I know it's happening. And what we're going to do is not be afraid of it. We're going to wrap our arms around it and we're going to do the things that it takes to meet the challenge, which are energy efficiency, a whole list of things. We're going to clean up power plants. We're going to make sure we have green buildings. And all these things that we do, Larry, to meet this challenge are good for the American people. KING: Senator... BOXER: The American people will save money, breath cleaner air... KING: Senator Inhofe, why are you so skeptical on this? SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R-OK), RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: Well, you know, I wasn't at one time, Larry. Four years ago, when I became chairman of this committee, I was a believer that it as manmade gasses that were causing global warming, because that's all you saw in the media. Then, when the Wharton School came out with the Wharton Econometrics Survey and it talked about how much this would destroy, economically, this country if we were to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty -- which was in consideration at that time -- and what it would cost. And I'm talking about doubling the cost of energy, doubling the cost of gas the average family of the millions watching this right now, the average family of four, it would have been $2,750 a year. So I thought let's look and make sure the science is right. Just at that time, the Smithsonian-Harvard Study came out. It refuted it. We had the Oregon Petition. That was 17,800 scientists came out and said no, it's not -- it's not due to manmade gasses. Now, Larry, it's important to understand, I agree that we're going through a warming period right now. We were going through a warning -- a warming period during the turn of the century. That lasted through 1945, then cooling until 1975, now warming until now. And they're guessing it's going to go into another cooling period in about five years. So why get hysterical? The same people who are hysterical about this, who have pictures of the poor polar bear standing on the last remaining ice cube, were the ones who were saying, just a few years ago, another ice age is coming and we're all going to die. KING: Senator Barbara Boxer? BOXER: Well, I don't know who he's talking about saying that. And the 17,000... INHOFE: Oh, "Time" magazine and... BOXER: ... and the 17,000 scientists, Jim, as you well know, most of them said they didn't really know what they were signing onto and have backed away from it. So let's -- let's just focus on the facts. The facts are that there is a consensus in this country -- there's a few people who say forget about it. But I have to say to tell the American people that their quality of life is going to diminish is just not right. How many things could you think of that will save people money in their pockets when they go to energy efficiency, when they drive cars that get better fuel economy? You know, the bottom line is we're going to move away from foreign oil, which we know causes lots of problems in the foreign affairs arena. So I think the only ones who are really hysterical right now are those who are standing up and saying I don't want to hear this, I don't want to do it. Frankly, it's amazing and encouraging to me to see the biggest businesses come forward, as they just did last week, and say we're ready to work with you, Senator Barbara Boxer. I got a call -- this is amazing -- from the head of Shell Oil, who -- we just have never gotten on, let's just put it that way -- who said I'm ready to work with you. KING: Senator... BOXER: People are coming to understand we've got to move. The Evangelicals are coming to me. So a consensus is building. And my dear friend, Jim Inhofe, is just being left, you know, all alone... KING: Senator... BOXER: ... pretty much. KING: Senator Inhofe, what's wrong with, on the side of caution, going the expense route (UNINTELLIGIBLE) just in case all... INHOFE: Well, first of all... KING: Just in case all these people are right? INHOFE: Larry, the reason so much panic is coming in on Barbara's side of this issue is that scientists are coming over and by almost on a weekly basis. And let me just mention a couple of them. The one I like to quote is a guy named Claude Allegre. He's a French geophysicist, a member of both the French and the National -- United States National Academy of Scientists. This is a quote, Larry. Now listen to this: "The cause of warming" -- this is a guy that marched up and down the street 10 years ago saying manmade gases are going to bring the world to an end. He now says that after studying the science, the new science: "The cause of warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by money." When Barbara brings up this idea of several corporations coming in, sure, if I were head of G.E. and I had a solar equipment that I was selling and wind turbines and all of that, I'd do the same thing. It's a great profit for them. Fifty-three percent of our energy is coal-fired energy, Larry. You pull that out and we have really serious problems. KING: We have an e-mail question and an opinion from Jesse in Gurnee, Illinois. The -- it's more an opinion: "Our whole humanity is at stake here. Why is this issue not at the top of every politician's agenda?" Senator Barbara Boxer, is it now? BOXER: Well, it certainly is at the top of my agenda, along with ending the war in Iraq, I'll tell you right now. The fact of the matter is I think, at the end of the day -- and we've proven it -- when you move toward a cleaner, healthier environment, you create jobs. You create -- you -- you see those new technologies coming online. I would say the president, for the first time, mentioned global climate change. It's his administration that is looking to see whether the polar bears are a threatened species. INHOFE: So... BOXER: So, again, we are moving forward and the caller is right. If we turn away from this challenge, I think we're turning away from our responsibility to make sure that we leave this planet, you know, really, at least as good, or better, than we got it from the creator. INHOFE: Larry... KING: Senator... BOXER: And that's how I feel... INHOFE: ... let me just interrupt... KING: All right. INHOFE: ... because I've got to get one last sentence in here, if at all possible. And that is they talk about the IPCC assessment -- fourth assessment. It's not coming out on Friday. That is the summary for policymakers. These are not scientists. These are the politicians. These are the ones who really want to believe that they, the United Nations -- they started this whole thing with the IPCC -- this is -- and let me read page four. This is probably the most significant part of what you're going to see on Friday. It says: "Changes in scientific work to ensure consistency with the summary for policymakers will occur." In other words, forget about the science, let's make the policymakers happy. That's what you're going to see on Friday. It will be... KING: OK, we're going to do... INHOFE: It will be May or June before the report comes out. KING: We're going to do lots more on this. Thanks, Senator Barbara Boxer. BOXER: Thank you. KING: And Senator Inhofe. INHOFE: Thank you. KING: Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California; James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma. By the way, they are good friends. We'll take a break and be back with our panel. Don't go away. (BEGIN VIDEO TAPE) JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the top of the world, the top of the food chain -- a strange and troubling new phenomenon. Polar bears are drowning and some scientists say these kings of the Arctic ice may vanish from the wild. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're getting thinner and thinner and thinner. And so instead of having two or three cubs a year, they're now having one and zero. And our report says by the end of this century, the polar bear is headed toward extinction. (END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: We're back with our panel. Let's reintroduce Heidi Cullen, climate expert for The Weather Channel, Bill Nye, the scientist, engineer and best-selling author. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred Sloan professor of atmospheric science at M.I.T. and Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network. Julian, you have said that when it comes to the assertion that we must reduce emissions of greenhouse cases in -- gases in order to avert catastrophe, such a cure may be worse than the disease. How so? MORRIS: Absolutely. Well, fundamentally, if you want to reduce emissions greenhouse gases, the only way you can do that is by somehow reducing inputs to the industrial process. It means reducing the amount of oil you use to drive cars. It means reducing the amount of coal used to power machines and so on. And the consequence of that is that you reduce the amount of economic growth that takes place. So you slow the rate at which the world improves. You divert resources away from, for example, investing in all sorts of innovative technologies that would improve productive efficiency, which is how economic development takes place, and you shift those into, as, for example, President Bush has done or proposed to do this week, into paying for corn farmers in Iowa to produce more corn, to produce bio- ethanol. This is a problem because you're imposing costs on society, and you have to justify that if you're going to do that by saying that there's going to be benefits. And, actually, where as if you get two economists in the room, it's often said you will get three different answers. When it comes to climate change, many, many economists have looked at this problem and the majority have said, well, and actually a small amount of warming is probably good for the world. It will increase agricultural production. You might, if you melt a bit of the arctic, open up the Northwest Passage. There are all sorts of benefits that would happen from a small amount of warming. So is it really sensible to impose dramatic costs when in fact the benefits will be small, if not actually zero? KING: We asked people on the street the question of what they fear the most and here's some of the comments. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Global warming is dangerous. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tidal waves, monsoons, hurricanes, stuff like that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The water levels rising and the ice caps melting. They say if the ice caps melt, it's going to be a huge problem with the water levels. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you explain all of the hurricanes and all of that stuff that's been going on, you know. Something's going on for sure. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Temperature wise it seems to be happening. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All over, our mental conditions will change. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we're going to blow the -- if we keep going the way we are. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: Heidi Cullen, are the TV meteorologists taken seriously in this matter? CULLEN: You know I think TV meteorologists have such a huge opportunity. They have access to people's living rooms on a daily basis. I feel like there's been hesitancy on their parts to answer the questions that they're being asked more than ever. I work with hundreds of meteorologists at The Weather Channel and they get asked on a regular basis, the heat wave that we saw last summer, was that global warming? The incredibly warm January, early part of January, was that global warming? These are all opportunities to discuss the science and I feel like for a lot of meteorologists, they feel like it's a political question. And the politics has really obscured the science. The science is really solid and global warming is absolutely happening. And I think we need to talk about it and I think TV meteorologists should talk about it as well. It's a great opportunity. KING: Bill Nye, do you ever doubt your findings? NYE: No. They're not really my findings. They are the findings of my colleagues. So yeah, I don't doubt them at all. In fact it's more compelling all the time. But the big message that I would like to mention is we have huge opportunities. We could change the world. My grandfather was in World War I, and he put a gas mask on himself and on his horse before they went into battle. Nobody took horses into battle, even 20 years later -- maybe a few Calvary from the Russians or something, so we could change. People change in a very short amount of time. It's very reasonable the United States, we have at least five times as much energy as we need in renewable energy if we were to convert to renewable energy. This would be huge economic opportunities. Wind turbines will be teamsters out there welding. Solar panels, there will be contractors putting them on roofs. And furthermore, we're so close to tremendous improvements in the technology of solar panels that we could put them on every roof and not need foreign oil, just economic development would actually be much greater. KING: We'll pick up with Richard Lindzen in a moment and get our own Rob Marciano's view on all of this. Don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) KING: We're back, we'll get back with our panel and pick up with Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. but first let's check in with Rob Marciano, CNN news and weather anchor, meteorologist. He has the American Meteorological Society seal of approval. Where do you come down on this global warming thing, Rob? ROB MARCIANO, CNN NEWS & WEATHER ANCHOR: Well, it's undeniable that we have warm, there's no doubt about that. We have come up over a degree in the past hundred or so years. The question that's been of contention is, has man been a part of it? And when you look at the numbers as far as how much carbon is in the air and more importantly how much carbon has been in the atmosphere historically, really since the beginning of the earth as we know it. And that range typically is from 170 parts per million to about 270. And right now we're clocking up at about 370 or so. So we're well above that and that's all come up in about the last 200 years. So that kind of tells us that man has something to do with it. The bigger question is Larry, where do we go from here? What are these models telling us where we're going to be 50 or 100 years from now? And that's where the uncertainty comes in. What's so exciting about the report that's going to come out on Friday is that we hope to narrow down that expectation, what used to be one degree to ten degrees Fahrenheit increase somewhere in there that range is going to be reduced significantly. And I spoke with one of the scientists who were part of the 250 or 2,500 scientists that are part of that panel, and he says they have some real confidence with this compared to the one that they issued in 2001. So we're excited to see what comes out of this report on Friday. It's going to narrow down the range, it's going to give us a more specific view as to what we can expect. But that is the wild card. What is going to happen? As weather forecasters, we can't get the five-day forecast right. We're going to bank -- put all of the money in the bank on a 50 or 100-year forecast, that is probably the thing that's most concerning, especially to meteorologist that forecast on a daily basis. You know how difficult it is to do that. KING: Are you concerned about major events in our lifetime? MARCIANO: Certainly. Drought and heat waves are probably the biggest thing that come to my mind. And what happens after that? We can get into a drought situation where, especially in the Midwest, where you're pretty much landlocked. You can get in a situation, kind of like what we had last summer, where we get a heat wave, we get a dry spell and it's tough to get out of that dry spell because that sun has baked that ground so much. And when you increase the temperature globally by a degree or two degrees, three or four degrees, that only let's that probability increase even more so. So that's probably the main concern I have. There's so many other things besides just the global temperatures. What are we doing around the world outside of the U.S., down in Brazil, the Amazon, whacking down those forests? The Amazon forests, those rain forests are like lungs of the atmosphere of our world and to see what's happening down there, we have other big problems out there, just besides the temperature rising. KING: Thanks for joining us, Rob. Always good seeing you. MARCIANO: Likewise Larry, thanks. KING: Rob Marciano. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., why not say give a little, get a little. Why not say, ok, I'll give a little to the other side just in case they're right. Maybe we ought to go through this expenditure? LINDZEN: Well, in a certain sense, when it comes to expenditures, and I'm speaking mostly as a citizen, except in one respect, almost everything proposed so far, if there's anything that there is a consensus on, will do very little to affect climate. So right now despite all of the claims to the contrary, we're talking about symbolism. And I think Julian's point is correct. Do you spend a lot? Do you distort a great deal in the economy for symbolism? And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit. KING: All right Richard, hold it a second, hold it right there. We'll be right back with our panel, we have to take a break. Let's check in with Anderson Cooper, who'll check in with us at the top of the hour with "AC 360." Anderson, what's up? ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Well Larry, we have a lot more on that incredible mess in Boston. The publicity stunt gone terribly wrong, began when more than a dozen suspicious devices were found around the city. Alert residents notified authorities. The resulting bomb scare pretty much shut down part of the city. At a press conference this hour authorities announced they have arrested a Boston area man who allegedly placed electronic devices in and around the city. We found this video on the man's website that he put there showing him placing the devices in the city. We'll have that story as well as the mystery of a missing young woman, cops call her an ivy league con artist and identity thief. She talked her way into Harvard using the name of another missing young woman. Our viewers are on her trail, much more of that Larry at the top of the hour. KING: That's Anderson Cooper, "AC 360," at 10:00 eastern, 7:00 pacific. We'll be right back, don't go away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) AL GORE: This is really not a political issue so much as a moral issue. The temperature increases are taking place all over the world, and that's causing stronger storms. MAYOR RAY NAGIN, NEW ORLEANS: This is the biggest crisis in the history of this country. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Early this morning hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans. GORE: Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists? (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: Julian Morris, Katrina was what it was, wasn't it? MORRIS: Well, if I understand it, the problems that arose out of Katrina could have been prevented had there been better flood defenses originally, had there been a better emergency preparation and so on. A lot of the problems of Katrina weren't a result of the hurricane per se but as a result of the lack of preparedness and so on. But that aside, there's also the problem of actually associating Katrina and hurricanes in general with climate change. If you look over the record, of 100 years, the relationship between hurricane intensity and hurricane numbers and temperature is not strong. So I think we have to get that in perspective. But fundamentally, when societies get wealthier, they're much better able in general to deal with problems such as Katrina. If a hurricane like Katrina hit a place like Bangladesh, it would cause far, far more damage. So what really needs to happen around the world is the economic development must take place. KING: I got you. MORRIS: If you restrict emissions of carbon dioxide, you slow down economic development, you prevent the poorest people in the world from being able to adapt to the problems that they currently face, the many millions of people who currently die from preventable diseases. So enable economic development to take place. That's got to be the priority. Don't focus so much on hypothetical problems that might result in the future from our emissions, I think. KING: Bill Nye, you're shaking your head. NYE: Yeah, well it depends on what you call economic development. Do we have to have everybody drive inefficient vehicles? Does everybody have to have very wasteful hot water, domestic hot water systems? Couldn't we all just advance together? And I'll give you an example, in China, when I was there this summer, people don't have telephones, don't have land lines. Everybody has two or three cell phones. They skip land lines. Couldn't we have people in a developing world skip to more efficient energy production technologies, more efficient energy transmission technologies, instead of having them drag through the fossil fuels? KING: Before -- hold on. NYE: It would be great if they could do, sure. KING: Heidi, what does -- what is the layman to do with all of this? You sit at home, you watch. What do you do with all of this information and contradictory information? CULLEN: Well I think the thing to keep in mind is that the science is very solid, and it's not solid because 2,500 scientists say it's real. It's because the evidence is overwhelming at this point and it's the evidence that has really convinced the majority of scientists. And to speak to this point of how the energy issue and are environment are interconnected, you know natural climate variability has always existed. We've always had to deal with droughts and flooding issues. And where the global warming issue comes in is that fossil fuel burning is pushing the rate of change at a clip that's very difficult for societies to keep up with. I don't think we give our climate system enough credit for the amount of disruption it can provide. And I do think that Katrina, actually, serves a perfect example of how scientific information should be used to the best of its capacity. And that is scientists were warning 30 years before this land falling hurricane that New Orleans was vulnerable and that we needed to improve the levees and we needed to make improvement to the infrastructure of the city. So what we're talking about is being proactive and using the science in an engaged, enlightened way because, you know what, civilizations have collapsed in the past. There's no reason to think that we're special. Let's use the science in the best possible way. KING: We'll be back with some more moments on this most important topic right after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Global warming is the condition of the earth that's happening because of emissions from businesses that don't care about the environment and too many cars, petrol fuel and tearing down things like trees. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not really scared that there really is global warming. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will be real hot and going to the beach will be very uncomfortable. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's going to be the end of the world eventually. It says it in the bible, and I believe it and I guess that day is coming. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What am I going to do about it? I'm going to up there and start blowing some ice cold wind to start freezing up those icebergs again. (END OF VIDEO CLIP) KING: I wanted to keep in touch with the intelligentsia of the program. A few laughs today on Hollywood Boulevard. Bill Nye has a cute thing. What are you going to show us? NYE: Well this is just one example, ok. KING: Of what? NYE: Of what we could do to save energy that no one thought of even a few years ago. These are two holiday lights, and they use more energy -- KING: These are the holiday lights? NYE: Yeah, we call them Christmas lights is one expression. They use more energy than these 20 light-emitting diode style bulbs. KING: Saying what? NYE: Saying that we can use about a third as much energy -- we could save rather about a third as much energy, a third of our energy with existing technologies just like that. You use -- your light bill goes lower. These are manufactured by people and companies that are making money. If we save 30 percent of our energy here in the United States, we could make very different decisions about how we engage powers around the world. KING: Richard -- NYE: And that's just for starters. KING: Richard, we're closely up against the clock. Do you feel at all that your Ka Hokey here, you're fighting a losing battle? LINDZEN: Not at all. I think time will tell. I think Mr. Nye is speaking about energy. Energy sources and balance have changed over time, it will change. I have no idea what the energy mix will be 50 years from now. But I think if what he says about profitable, better sources are there, they will come online and they will come online without government fiat. Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about. This is a problem with so many facets, that the notion that scientists are in lox, that bonnet is silly. NYE: This report has them at 99 percent certainty, this report that comes out this week -- LINDZEN: Ninety-nine percent certainty of what? NYE: It was 60 five years ago. LINDZEN: Of what? NYE: That the world's going to get warmer by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.2 Celsius. LINDZEN: No, it didn't say anything of the sort. It didn't say that. NYE: Ok, well, we'll see what happens when the report comes out. KING: Well how do we know if it's not out yet? LINDZEN: The report won't come out until May. NYE: Ok, so do you want to talk about the -- you say that there is no global climate change? Is that your argument? LINDZEN: I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying temperature has changed -- NYE: Are you saying the problem is not serious? KING: Let him finish. LINDZEN: I'm saying that we have seen a rate of temperature change that is not outside the range of what the climate does by itself. So -- NYE: You're saying the current rate is consistent with, for example, the ice score records? I that what you're saying, it's about the same speed as the record of the -- LINDZEN: The ice score records, excuse me, have a time resolution of 2,000 years. They couldn't tell you what's going on, on the scale you're talking about. NYE: I disagree with that statement right there. LINDZEN: Do you want to make this small wager on it? KING: Go ahead, Bill. NYE: I'll bet you a cup of coffee. LINDZEN: how about a bottle of (INAUDIBLE). NYE: I don't know what that is. LINDZEN: Sixty dollars for a bottle of scotch. NYE: Sure, it sounds fancy. KING: He's from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about. Thank you all very much. We will not leave this topic alone. Heidi Cullen, Bill Nye, Richard Lindzen and Julian Morris. Before we go, New York Senior Senator Chuck Schumer has written his first book, it's titled "Positively American, Winning Back the Middle Class Majority One Family at a Time." There you see his cover. In it he tries to answer the question what do Democrats stand for. It's a provocative book, might provide some clues about who's going to win in 2008. The book, "Positively American" by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. No matter what's your politics, we recommend this book. And by the way, in many cases Chuck Schumer takes no prisoners, Democrat or Republican. And neither does Anderson Cooper, never takes a prisoner. Anyone is in line in his march. What a story tonight out of Boston. Anderson Cooper will host "AC 360" right now. Anderson? TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:31:06 GMT http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#0ff991ce-1e95-4693-b5b6-42d5ea43e1f3 $item.owner.firstName 2012-02-10T02:31:06Z http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#43d2dbd0-cef4-41a6-8b0c-d157b6ddee78 MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other" February 1, 2007 Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov 12:33 PM ET - February 1, 2007 MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen’s appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live on January 31, 2007 at 9:00 PM EST Plus: Watch Video of Senator Inhofe & Senator Barbara Boxer on Larry King Last Night. MIT’s Richard Lindzen called fears of manmade global warming ‘silly" and debated PBS’s Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and the controversial Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen on last night’s Larry King Live. Lindzen corrected several of Nye's claims regarding climate science. "We are simply saying that if you wish to issue scare remarks, you should make them accurate, according to the science," Lindzen told Nye. At one point, CNN host Larry King cautioned Nye against making a bet with Lindzen over who was correct about the science of global warming. "[Lindzen's] from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about," King warned Nye. Lindzen mocked fears of global warming by comparing them to children’s imaginations. "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves," Lindzen said. Lindzen, a past UN IPCC contributor, also explained how only a dozen scientists were involved in writing the 2001(Third Assessment Report) IPCC media hyped Summary For Policymakers that purported to speak for thousands of scientists. Cullen, who has been under fire for her call for the decertification of climate skeptics and her involvement in the politcially supercharged new documentary "Everything's Cool", praised former Vice President Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth." "I think the documentary is very well done and [Gore] really hits the science issues and he captures them very nicely," Cullen said. Check out transcript below and see Lindzen confront Nye about his unsupportable climate claims and see Nye back down. Excerpts of MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen on CNN's Larry King Live - Full CNN transcript Here Selected Excerpts From Larry King Live January 31, 2007: RICHARD S. LINDZEN, MIT PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE- On Global Warming Fears: I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves. And there's a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. Lindzen on ‘Symbolic’ Solutions to Global Warming Lindzen: "[I]f there's anything that there is a consensus on, [it is that we] will do very little to affect climate. So right now despite all of the claims to the contrary, we're talking about symbolism. And I think Julian's point is correct. Do you spend a lot? Do you distort a great deal in the economy for symbolism? And I think future generations are not going to blame us for anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree panic us. And I think nobody is arguing about whether our climate is changing. It's always changing. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. The experts on it in the IPCC have freely acknowledged there's no strong evidence it's accelerating. Lindzen Says UN IPCC does not Reflect Thousands of Scientists – Only a Dozen or so Scientists: Senator Inhofe was absolutely right. All that's coming out Friday is a summary for policymakers that is not prepared by scientists. Rob is wrong. It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit. Lindzen Debates Bill Nye, PBS TV’s the "Science Guy" on Scientific Accuracy LINDZEN: Not at all. I think time will tell. I think Mr. Nye is speaking about energy. Energy sources and balance have changed over time, it will change. I have no idea what the energy mix will be 50 years from now. But I think if what he says about profitable, better sources are there, they will come online and they will come online without government fiat. Heidi [Cullen] says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about. This is a problem with so many facets, that the notion that scientists are in lock, that bonnet is silly. LARRY KING: Yes. Bill Nye, where is Richard Lindzen wrong? BILL NYE, "THE SCIENCE GUY," SCIENTIST, BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, TV PERSONALITY: Well, he -- I'm not sure, because I'm not -- I'm not an expert on his ideas. But the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC report, which comes out Friday, is pretty compelling. And, as you know, I'm a member of the advisory board of the Union of Concerned Scientists and I find my colleagues pretty compelling, much more so than his -- his view is -- is a minority on a scale that's -- that's impressive. It's probably 100,000 to one or so, scientists versus him. KING: All right, Richard, are you... NYE: But I don't want it to get to be a personal attack. And... KING: OK, Richard, are you -- are you one of the alone ones in this? LINDZEN: You know, on what I was just saying, I was saying textbook material. And if the textbooks are out voiced by environmental advocacy groups like Union of Concerned Scientists by 100,000 to one -- that would be bizarre. We should close down our schools. This makes no sense, what Mr. Nye is saying. I'm simply saying his comments about the Gulf Stream are wrong. And his comments about heat transport are wrong. And that is not 100,000 to one. That is... NYE: Yes, just to clarify, I said that -- Larry asked me about fresh water falling on the ocean. LINDZEN: Yes. NYE: That's what I'm saying. LINDZEN: And fresh water... NYE: That would be the ultimate consequence. LINDZEN: Yes. And all I'm saying is the thermohaline circulation is not the major driver of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is not what people are... NYE: So you're saying that we shouldn't be concerned about global climate change because... LINDZEN: Nobody is saying... NYE: ... wind developments the -- the Gulf Stream? LINDZEN: Nobody it saying anything... NYE: That's not enough for me. LINDZEN: Well, nobody is saying anything of the sort. We are simply saying that if you wish to issue scare remarks, you should make them accurate, according to the science. NYE: So it will be very dangerous if the world gets two degrees Fahrenheit warmer in, say, the next 50 years? LINDZEN: Well... NYE: It will be dangerous for almost everybody. LINDZEN: In what sense? NYE: Now, do you disagree with that? LINDZEN: Yes, of course, I do. I mean there is no study that suggests that two degrees Fahrenheit will make the world appreciably more dangerous. It will... KING: All right, I've got to break in here. NYE: This report has them at 99 percent certainty, this report that comes out this week -- LINDZEN: Ninety-nine percent certainty of what? NYE: It was 60 five years ago. LINDZEN: Of what? NYE: That the world's going to get warmer by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.2 Celsius. LINDZEN: No, it didn't say anything of the sort. It didn't say that. NYE: Ok, well, we'll see what happens when the report comes out. KING: Well how do we know if it's not out yet? LINDZEN: The report won't come out until May. NYE: Ok, so do you want to talk about the -- you say that there is no global climate change? Is that your argument? LINDZEN: I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying temperature has changed -- NYE: Are you saying the problem is not serious? KING: Let him finish. LINDZEN: I'm saying that we have seen a rate of temperature change that is not outside the range of what the climate does by itself. So -- NYE: You're saying the current rate is consistent with, for example, the ice score records? I that what you're saying, it's about the same speed as the record of the -- LINDZEN: The ice score records, excuse me, have a time resolution of 2,000 years. They couldn't tell you what's going on, on the scale you're talking about. NYE: I disagree with that statement right there. LINDZEN: Do you want to make this small wager on it? KING: Go ahead, Bill. NYE: I'll bet you a cup of coffee. LINDZEN: how about a bottle of (INAUDIBLE). NYE: I don't know what that is. LINDZEN: Sixty dollars for a bottle of scotch. NYE: Sure, it sounds fancy. KING: He's from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about. Thank you all very much. We will not leave this topic alone. Heidi Cullen, Bill Nye, Richard Lindzen and Julian Morris. Full Transcript of CNN’s Larry King Live about Global Warming Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:30:46 GMT http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#43d2dbd0-cef4-41a6-8b0c-d157b6ddee78 $item.owner.firstName 2012-02-10T02:30:46Z http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#cf547c5e-e075-4d12-833e-bbb29c14ee54 No wonder the alarmist commies hate debate http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_the_warmists_hate_debate/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:28:13 GMT http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#cf547c5e-e075-4d12-833e-bbb29c14ee54 $item.owner.firstName 2012-02-10T02:28:13Z http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#48876b2e-bf6e-42d7-8a4e-60f406cc3555 Watch the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ No warming at all in the last 15 years http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/ 35 inconvenient truths http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html Bozo Gore goes to court - and loses http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenient-errors Warmer's fake Temp graphs don't jibe with CO2 http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/correlation_last_decade_and_this_century_between_co2_and_global_temperature/ Global Warming elsewhere in the Solar System http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6544 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:26:43 GMT http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#48876b2e-bf6e-42d7-8a4e-60f406cc3555 $item.owner.firstName 2012-02-10T02:26:43Z http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#a1377423-4a29-4c2e-a306-af0778d53cf0 Blogs - Blogs Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics May 15, 2007 Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate. In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” ) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears ) Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version ) Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.” Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:16:25 GMT http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#a1377423-4a29-4c2e-a306-af0778d53cf0 $item.owner.firstName 2012-02-10T02:16:25Z http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#fee9102d-9064-4162-b44f-a2648c57a1ad Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate posted at 11:00 am on February 8, 2012 by Bruce McQuain In fact, it seems as if it isn’t really much of a debate anymore. First, let me be clear, the debate among scientists isn’t whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether, even, it can cause warming, but instead on what real (if any) total effect it has overall on the climate. In other words, is there a saturation point where additional CO2 has little marginal effect, or does it build to a tipping point where the change is radical? Robust climate or delicate climate? Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd’s theory. So, on to the latest high profile defections: One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?” Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science. Vahrenholt concluded, through his research, that the science of the IPCC (if you can call it that) was mostly political and had been “hyped.” Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel today also featured a 4-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt, where he repeated that the IPCC has ignored a large part of climate science and that IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. Vahrenholt said that by extending the known natural cycles of the past into the future, and taking CO2′s real impact into effect, we should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling. That, as I said, points to the “robust” climate model. Once more to make the point before I leave the subject: Skeptic readers should not think that the book will fortify their existing skepticism of CO2 causing warming. The authors agree it does. but have major qualms about the assumed positive CO2-related feed-backs and believe the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things. As Dr. Roy Spencer says, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Adding CO2 should cause warming. The argument is “how much” and that’s based on competing theories about the climate’s sensitivity. Skeptics think the sensitivity is very low while alarmists think it is very high. The building evidence is that rising CO2 has little warming effect in real terms regardless of the amount of the gas emitted. That there is a “saturation level”. If that’s true, and indications are it is, then there’s a) no justification for limiting emissions and b) certainly no justification to tax them. That, of course, is where politics enter the picture. Governments like the idea of literally creating a tax out of thin air, especially given the current financial condition of most states. Consequently, governments are more likely to fund science that supports their desired conclusion – and it seems that in this case there were plenty who were willing to comply (especially, as Patrick J. Michael has noted, when that gravy train amounts to $103 billion in grants). What Vahrenholt is objecting too is the IPCC’s key definition in which it clearly states that “climate change” is a result of and because of “human contributions”. As noted above, he thinks that the sun is a much greater factor (something mostly ignored in the models) and he finds past CO2 trends to forecast nothing like the IPCC’s forecast. What we’re finding as this argument goes forward is that Patrick Michaels was right – “AGW theory functions best in a data free environment”. ~McQ http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/two-more-scientists-change-sides-in-the-agw-debate/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:16:01 GMT http://tribes.tribe.net/thread/fce7a263-d0e0-4bd0-9a13-04ff339c8bd0#fee9102d-9064-4162-b44f-a2648c57a1ad $item.owner.firstName 2012-02-10T02:16:01Z