Regarding the banning of the incandescent light bulb : You can not use a flourescent or any other non-incandescent type bulb with a dimmer switch. I for one, am unwilling to give up the use of dimmers in the rooms where I have them, and banning them, i.e. eliminating the freedom to choose them, is a further encroachment against our personal freedoms.

The article is spot on. My only question how much money is given to researchers to are in agreement with anthropogenic G.W.? Throwing acusation concerning the validity of a report because of the source of funding is a two way street.

The majority of this article is basically saying, 'Hey I have a Ph.D. in climatology and I don't believe in global warming, but nobody listens to me because the majority says otherwise.' This is a pretty unscientific and unconvincing argument.

His one scientific conjecture appears late in the article, here: "The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."

There's a nugget of truth to what he says here. What we have is a correlation between warming and CO2 in the atmosphere, which scientifically we must admit does not prove causation. This would mean that it would be equally scientifically sound to say that global warming is increasing the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. However, we know this is a fallacy since we have already identified the source of CO2 (fossil fuels), so the causation is derived from this knowledge.

As for this climatologist's opinion, according to Yale's geology department, "Many scientists, using different methods, have tested the hypothesis that the recent warming is also a natural shift. Every analysis has yielded the same answer� "no"�the warming since 1970 has been too widespread and too rapid. A few scientists still reserve judgment on this, but no model has been able to explain the warming naturally."

As a climatologist, shouldn't he know this? I would suggest that it would be very bad for the funding of his research if he were to know this, and so he long ago decided not to know.

Read critically, read carefully.

I do want to say that I want the tone here to change. I'm drawing the line on the insults in the comments. Before people scream censorship, I want to state again I don't care what your opinion is. State it in a civil manner and I will publish it. Call someone else an idiot because they disagree with you and I will not. Period.

"Censorship" is something that a government does. The last time I checked, neither Laura nor Accuweather are in any way part of the government.

What a publisher does is "exercise editorial judgement." In other words: Accuweather pays the bills, Accuweather owns the site, and Accuweather decides what does and does not get published. Laura is the Accuweather agent who makes those decisions. She is the editor, and editors DO choose what does and does not get published. That's their JOB. We are fortunate that Laura seems willing to be open about her boundaries. Not all editors are so flexible.

This is that good old-fashioned Republican value called "Free Enterprise".

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see Laura apply a heavier -- rather than lighter -- hand. If somebody doesn't like it, or can't fit their comments within her editorial guidelines, then I think that person can find somewhere else to spout their boorish rubbish.

Laura,

I think your decision to edit blog comments is an excellent one. I never realized how downright nasty people can get on the computer until I saw what goes on from my son (and then later on global warming blogs). I think what goes on in the blogosphere is similar to what people do inside the security of thier own cars, they say things to others they would never consider saying if they were speaking to the other person face-to-face.

Thanks!

Laura (and like-minded readers),

can you claim to have ONE (moral) standard when you so SELECTIVELY & hypocritically sneer at scientists who accept funding from industry folks that keep your car running, your emergency generator humming, your house warm...the list goes on....whereas you say NOTHING about the utter sham of Ph.D.'s who rise in high dudgeon to hector & browbeat industry-funded colleagues....while themselves gorging on mega-millions wrested from taxpayers, no matter how dubious or downright deceitful their own "conclusions-first-factoids-later" "research" (such as Michael Mann's "hockey-stick" that "justified" the IPCC's 1995 about-face)???

I'm not here to exonerate favorite whipping-boys like Exxon and don't own a single energy-related share. Unlike you & most of your alter egos, including city slickers who're self-anointed armchair "defenders of the wilderness," I happen to live in the wilderness.

That said, I reject as baseless character assassination any insinuation that working for or accepting research funds from Exxon is "ipso facto" reprehensible or somehow "more" questionable than gorging at the public trough.

Though it'd be patently unfair to label Exxon-funded researchers as prostitutes, I'll use the analogy: I much prefer an honest prostitute to, say, a "lady" who feigns the "picture-postcard homemaker" evenings, yet doubles as a hooker while hubby (i.e., the taxpayer) ain't there to see.

Sincerely,
Hank

Well, this is interesting. Tim's tone seems to be getting a little desperate.

Based on the content of the linked piece, Tim qualifies as an out-and-out denialist rather than as a skeptic. He complains that somehow global warming theory had become a "law" at an early stage. As any climatologist knows, the reason for this is that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere must result in warming (all else being equal). Arrhenius figured this out a century ago, just after the science had been worked out on how gas molecules absorb and emit various wavelengths of light. If this science is wrong, it would be necessary to abandon some of the fundamental understandings upon which modern physics and chemistry are based. Note that actual skeptics (Richard Lindzen, e.g.) don't try to argue these points.

According to this, it turns out that Tim's degree is in geography (topic in historical climatology), i.e. not a science degree. So maybe he doesn't understand the physics after all. This additional background material may be of interest as well.

your comment concerning funding of bell's group by oil and energy may be correct. how about pointing out government monies recieved by non dissenting researchers and groups. it seems to me that more and more of our tax dollars will find it's way in the warm sector. how much will the u n spend this year and who will get it. do you know of any site that breaks down such info. in short why no put up a disclaimer for those who recieve tax $$$$$$$$$$$ who seem to favor your position. thanks for reading and have a great day

People love to join in. Politicians know this. We need to stop using oil from the middle east and use nuclear generated electricity instead. So why not use climate change fears to get people to accept that fission is clean. More fission power means more funding for fusion, which is what we really need.

Fusion will give us new technologies as well so win/win there. More investment in nuclear will get cheaper power to the third world and more electric cars, so win/win there. Nothing like a change in technology to boost a flagging economy.

My memories combined with long term scientific research tell me the world is going through a 1 in 100 (1 in 3000) year hot phase which could last only 10 years and be over by 2009, followed in 50 years by a 1 in 100 year cold phase, and if its a 1 in 3000 event, it might be a mini ice age. Maybe the measly 2% we contribute could stop it being so cold. Unfortunately, unless I get a genetic rejuve, I'll be dead so won't see if I'm right.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see Laura apply a heavier -- rather than lighter -- hand. If somebody doesn't like it, or can't fit their comments within her editorial guidelines, then I think that person can find somewhere else to spout their boorish rubbish.

REPLY: Of course you would, Brookline. Silence those who disagree with you. Silence thier "boorish rubbish." Silence the ones who aren't buying your line of tripe. Freedom of speech works for you, unless someone calls you out on your opinions. Unless someone challenges you. How dare those uninformed nerdewells! How unsurprising. I only stop to thank Laura Hannon for allowing ALL viewpoints on this topic to be posted on this forum. With sincere gratitude.

Regarding "A Dissenting View + Off Topic Ramblings", seems a bit hypocritical on your part that you deny dissenting response based on the word "idiot", while several blog posts down I believe you so proudly titled one of your posts "Ignorance Is Bliss" to belittle & undermine dissent, whether polite or not. Seems you have very unwisely(and obviously inadvertently) revealed your decidedly biased & narrow-minded refusal to print just about ANY dissent that challenges your lockstep alignment with the politico-scientists at the UN, whether it contains name-calling or not. Not claiming any counter scientific or meteorological knowledge myself; this is just my observation of a blog editor of a weather website perhaps thinking a little too immaturely highly of herself.

Oiznop - I have not published some comments from both sides in the past few days. I just wish some would stay a little farther from the edge. The question is, can those I'm referring to take a hint?

John - My use of the word ignorance was a reference to that percentage of the population which claimed to never have read nor heard of global warming. Ignorance: Lacking knowledge, learning or information. Sounds like the right word to use in that instance. Whether they march in "lockstep" doesn't matter to me.

Ah, but wouldn't you agree, Laura, that life on the edge is much more interesting?....;-D.....

Silence thier "boorish rubbish." Silence the ones who aren't buying your line of tripe.

Oiznop, if you want to spend time in a cesspool of insults, threats, verbal abuse, and similar garbage, that is certainly your right. The web -- and AM radio dial -- is full of such places. The management here -- and at least some of the participants -- has made a different choice.

It seems to me that you are conflating two different questions:

1) Does this site allow disagreement
2) Does this site allow "boorish rubbish"

I think that Laura has said, quite clearly, that she strongly encourages (1) and strongly discourages (2).

If you are unable to separate these two questions, then I suspect you might well have a rather difficult time here.

If you ARE able to keep them separate, I'm not at all sure what your concern is.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=90d84894-4448-4dfc-8e56-d65c1ba13e54

In Calgary tomorrow, two Tory Cabinet ministers will explain part of Ottawa's emerging plan to squeeze a few carbon emissions out of the oil and gas industry. Other schemes are reportedly in the works for the auto sector. Consumers may get dragged into guilt-ridden campaigns to cut energy use. Big energy-consuming electricity producers and major industries are also expected to be lined up in Ottawa's sights as the Conservatives prepare to tackle climate change by reducing the rate of growth in Canada's carbon emissions.

Some policy changes, such as reducing tax incentives for oilsands development, might be welcome. But as the government starts swinging big regulatory sticks around, economic damage is inevitable. The cost of that damage can't be measured yet, but it is not hard to figure out that whatever Ottawa imposes on the economy to fight a war on carbon emissions, the absurdity of the war effort will eventually become clear.

A measure of that absurdity -- a price for which the Tories may eventually pay -- landed on the front page of the Financial Times yesterday. China announced that last year alone it added 102 gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity to its economy. Give or take a gigawatt, that new capacity is equal to roughly Canada's total current annual electricity capacity.

These new Chinese power plants are 90% coal powered, which means they spew out large amounts of carbon emissions. With the help of an expert, I've worked out an estimate of the new annual carbon emissions China added to its inventory last year alone. If 90% of the 102 gigawatts is coal, that means coal capacity of about 90 gigawatts. If the power plants operate at 60% capacity, the new plants will add 473 million kilowatt hours to China's annual electricity production. A conventional and reasonable estimate of carbon emissions is about 1.1 kilograms of greenhouse gases for each kilowatt-hour of power, for an annual total of 470 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year.

To recap: China last year added electricity- generating capacity that will produce an estimated 470 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. That number is equal to about 70% of the total annual greenhouse-gas emissions from the entire Canadian economy. Not 70% of the Canadian electricity sector, but 70% of total annual emissions from all sectors -- energy, automobiles, heating, industry --of the Canadian economy.

Canada's estimated national economy- wide production of greenhouse-gas emissions is currently about 750 million tonnes. Even if China cleans up the coal with the latest technology -- unlikely --or even sequesters part, it will still be pumping new carbon into the atmosphere equal to 50% of Canada's total emissions. Even under the best environmental assumption of total sequestration, in which China would capture and store carbon at these new plants, it will still be producing 140 million tonnes of carbon, or almost 20% of total Canadian carbon emissions.

These numbers demonstrate global issues that have always been obvious, which is that Canada's carbon role is worth only 2.3% of total world carbon emissions. China is adding the equivalent of a new Canada every year.

China also has no intention of reducing emissions significantly. "Climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per-capita emissions," said Jiaang Yu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman. "Developing countries bear an unshirkable responsibility," she said, sounding like she had just been briefed by Maurice Strong and the other United Nations wealth redistributionists who created the Kyoto Protocol.

While China cranks out carbon emissions, the Conservatives are preparing a multi-pronged program to harass Canadians and regulate the economy, all to achieve carbon reductions that -- even if wildly successful -- will do nothing for world carbon measures and will pose risks of slower growth to Canada's economy.

I've been commenting on the GW issue for quite a long time and all of my comments have been published.

Most of them referred to the idea of a human-induced Global Warming. However, when the topic came to specific matters (the Aussie's Drought, for example) I had no problems in expressing my thoughts. When everyone was talking about "activist students", I had to deal with comments that were a bit harsh to me. "Get a life," "who cares about young people? They can't event vote?," said many. I neither complained nor wrote something nasty to those people.

No one can't say comments here are published according to the commenter's view.

Finally, it's not always interesting to be on the edge, specially when other people can be offended.

Sincerely,

Emiliano

To Gary (from 2/5):

Do your research before you post: they do make dimmable compact fluorescent bulbs, as seen at the GOVERNMENT website below:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=cfls.advanced_cfl_search

Thank You