It certainly stops at my house as I'm freezing my ass off for weeks now.
Whenever I turn the thermostat up a notch I know it'll cost me later by
digging deeper into my wallet.

I need some help as my house is so energy inefficient. The house is late
1970s and is located in the Bay Area. Except for the HW heater it has not
been updated, energy wise. It has concrete tile roof without plywood or OSB
sheeting under it (so attic fan is useless) such that it absorbs heat in the
Summer days and release it back into the house during nights - very hot
regarding the second floor bedrooms. Its a two story house with a split
HVAC, about 4" blown in insulation in the attic and single pane windows and
sliding patio doors. I don't have the cash reserve to do everything at once
so where should I start first to get the most efficient use of my money? I'm
looking at long term so I want to do it right. Do I start with replacing the
windows first, than insulation and lastly the HVAC and the front entry
double doors, or is it in a difference sequence? Maybe perhaps a new roof
too? I would like to incorporate some solar energy and/or some kind of heat
recovery system sometime in the future after the basic energy upgrades are
finished. I like to go for it if I could visualize payback within 20 years.

In article , "# Fred #" wrote:
It certainly stops at my house as I'm freezing my ass off for weeks now.
Whenever I turn the thermostat up a notch I know it'll cost me later by
digging deeper into my wallet.

I need some help as my house is so energy inefficient. The house is late
1970s and is located in the Bay Area. Except for the HW heater it has not
been updated, energy wise. It has concrete tile roof without plywood or OSB
sheeting under it (so attic fan is useless) such that it absorbs heat in the
Summer days and release it back into the house during nights - very hot
regarding the second floor bedrooms. Its a two story house with a split
HVAC, about 4" blown in insulation in the attic and single pane windows and
sliding patio doors. I don't have the cash reserve to do everything at once
so where should I start first to get the most efficient use of my money? I'm
looking at long term so I want to do it right. Do I start with replacing the
windows first, than insulation and lastly the HVAC and the front entry
double doors, or is it in a difference sequence? Maybe perhaps a new roof
too? I would like to incorporate some solar energy and/or some kind of heat
recovery system sometime in the future after the basic energy upgrades are
finished. I like to go for it if I could visualize payback within 20 years.

In general:

1. Fix any simple/obvious problems first such as huge gaps
under/around doors and windows, HVAC issues like clogged
filters, duct work that has come apart etc. etc.

2. Next, insulation is likely to produce the best bang for
the buck, by a significant margin.

3. Energy efficient windows can help a lot but they're
also costly compared to items 1 and 2.

In other words, I'd do basic maintenance and insulation
before replacing the windows (unless they're in really
bad shape and need immediate attention).

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"# Fred #" writes:

It certainly stops at my house as I'm freezing my ass off for weeks now.
Whenever I turn the thermostat up a notch I know it'll cost me later by
digging deeper into my wallet.

I need some help as my house is so energy inefficient. The house is late
1970s and is located in the Bay Area. Except for the HW heater it has not
been updated, energy wise. It has concrete tile roof without plywood or OSB
sheeting under it (so attic fan is useless) such that it absorbs heat in the
Summer days and release it back into the house during nights - very hot
regarding the second floor bedrooms. Its a two story house with a split
HVAC, about 4" blown in insulation in the attic and single pane windows and
sliding patio doors. I don't have the cash reserve to do everything at once
so where should I start first to get the most efficient use of my money? I'm
looking at long term so I want to do it right. Do I start with replacing the
windows first, than insulation and lastly the HVAC and the front entry
double doors, or is it in a difference sequence? Maybe perhaps a new roof
too? I would like to incorporate some solar energy and/or some kind of heat
recovery system sometime in the future after the basic energy upgrades are
finished. I like to go for it if I could visualize payback within
20 years.

Windows are generally regarded to have among the longest payback
times, so they may not be the place to start.

More attic insulation is a huge bang for the buck though. I'd start
there.

Windows, however do provide a great deal of comfort in stopping drafts
and making things feel a lot better. If you don't have the reserve
now, consider plastic window film. The 3m window kits are actually
wonderful, and once treated with the blow dryer, they almost
disappear. For windows that spend most of the winter behind curtains
anyway, all the better. The 3m tape is where it's at--if you buy
bargain windows kits, you may regret it.

But if you can afford to do windows, do. They should payback in 20
years unless you go nuts with the top of the line windows.

Heating ... what do you have now?

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Windows are generally regarded to have among the longest payback
times, so they may not be the place to start.

More attic insulation is a huge bang for the buck though. I'd start
there.

Windows, however do provide a great deal of comfort in stopping drafts
and making things feel a lot better. If you don't have the reserve
now, consider plastic window film. The 3m window kits are actually
wonderful, and once treated with the blow dryer, they almost
disappear. For windows that spend most of the winter behind curtains
anyway, all the better. The 3m tape is where it's at--if you buy
bargain windows kits, you may regret it.

But if you can afford to do windows, do. They should payback in 20
years unless you go nuts with the top of the line windows.

Heating ... what do you have now?


HVAC is original late 1970 vintage, amazingly both air and heat still works
though not very efficiently. Heating is central natural gas fired units, one
for downstairs and one for upstairs. House about 3,000sf and I'm the only
one in it most of the time while wife out shopping so no need to fired up
the unit(s) just for one person.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Al's at a global warming conference in Denver
Frank

"Frank" wrote in message
oups.com...
Al's at a global warming conference in Denver
Frank


You could thank him for me for the invention of the internet when you see
him in Denver!

# Fred # wrote:
It certainly stops at my house as I'm freezing my ass off for weeks
now. Whenever I turn the thermostat up a notch I know it'll cost me
later by digging deeper into my wallet.

I need some help as my house is so energy inefficient. The house is
late 1970s and is located in the Bay Area. Except for the HW heater
it has not been updated, energy wise. It has concrete tile roof
without plywood or OSB sheeting under it (so attic fan is useless)
such that it absorbs heat in the Summer days and release it back into
the house during nights - very hot regarding the second floor
bedrooms. Its a two story house with a split HVAC, about 4" blown in
insulation in the attic and single pane windows and sliding patio
doors. I don't have the cash reserve to do everything at once so
where should I start first to get the most efficient use of my money?
I'm looking at long term so I want to do it right. Do I start with
replacing the windows first, than insulation and lastly the HVAC and
the front entry double doors, or is it in a difference sequence?
Maybe perhaps a new roof too? I would like to incorporate some solar
energy and/or some kind of heat recovery system sometime in the
future after the basic energy upgrades are finished. I like to go
for it if I could visualize payback within 20 years.

I would start with more insulation (8 or more inches) and since that is
a 30 + year old AC and Heat, you will gain a lot by replacing them with
modern energy efficient units. I doubt if it will be much longer before you
have to replace them anyway.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

I realize the truth is seldom as interesting as a lie, but for those
who care....

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Cheers,
Paul

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:56:02 -0800, "# Fred #"
wrote:

You could thank him for me for the invention of the internet when you see
him in Denver!

"# Fred #" wrote in message
. ..

"Frank" wrote in message
oups.com...
Al's at a global warming conference in Denver
Frank


You could thank him for me for the invention of the internet when you see
him in Denver!

Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

And anyone who ridicules "global warming" because it happens
to be cool where they are really need to get a clue.
http://www.undoit.org/what_is_gb_myth.cfm

Bob

The DOE recomends R-38 in attics. This is 12", unsettled of
cellulose insulation. This would make a great impact on your heating
cost. Are our walls insulated? Cellulose blown into the wall cavities
can also make a large difference.
You may want to have a energy specialists come out to your house and
do a energy audit. This could include a blower door diagnostic, which
will show air leakage into your home. They may also use an infrared
camera to determined if there is insulation in the walls.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:05:30 -0800, "# Fred #"
wrote:

It certainly stops at my house as I'm freezing my ass off for weeks now.
Whenever I turn the thermostat up a notch I know it'll cost me later by
digging deeper into my wallet.

You know it's cold every winter. And because of the higher price of
fuel, even if it isn't as cold as it was in prior years, it still
costs more.

You can't tell by the weather in your one town in one winter whether
there is global warming or not.

But it appears that everyone who studies the data agrees that there
is, except for those who have been hired by those in whose interest it
is to say otherwise.

"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..

"# Fred #" wrote in message
. ..

"Frank" wrote in message
oups.com...
Al's at a global warming conference in Denver
Frank


You could thank him for me for the invention of the internet when you see
him in Denver!

Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet.
http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm


Easy Bob, its was a joke not a political statement. Besides, Al Gore is too
smart to make that claim even though he open himself to that interpretation.
Whenever you have divas, actors and politicians taking scientific issues and
passing themselves as experts, I'm a little concern vis-a-vis An
Inconvenient Truth. At any rate, I like Al Gore and he could have been a
good president if it wasn't for his sidekick messing around in the
Whitehouse.

And anyone who ridicules "global warming" because it happens
to be cool where they are really need to get a clue.
http://www.undoit.org/what_is_gb_myth.cfm

Bob


No ridicule intended, again it was a light joke. I don't know enough about
this issue to have conviction one way or another. From surfing the internet
last night, all that I know is that the global warming issue, or discussion
anyway, is where you have science mixed in with politics and the above
article you referenced to is from Environment Defense, a left wing group
with their own agenda, no? Form what little I know we had a few cycles of
global warming long before the SUVs and industrialization so this is one
more cycle, no? According to Wikipedia, we have scientific experts in this
field taken issue with this. All that I know is I'm freezing my ass off
again this morning and if its not global warming than why call it global?
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to save energy, doing my part and wouldn't
touch a SUV with a ten foot pole and trying to go green in the future if my
wallet permits.

"# Fred #" wrote in message
And anyone who ridicules "global warming" because it happens
to be cool where they are really need to get a clue.
http://www.undoit.org/what_is_gb_myth.cfm

Bob


No ridicule intended, again it was a light joke. I don't know enough about
this issue to have conviction one way or another. From surfing the
internet
last night, all that I know is that the global warming issue, or
discussion
anyway, is where you have science mixed in with politics and the above
article you referenced to is from Environment Defense, a left wing group
with their own agenda, no? Form what little I know we had a few cycles of
global warming long before the SUVs and industrialization so this is one
more cycle, no? According to Wikipedia, we have scientific experts in this
field taken issue with this. All that I know is I'm freezing my ass off
again this morning and if its not global warming than why call it global?
Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to save energy, doing my part and wouldn't
touch a SUV with a ten foot pole and trying to go green in the future if
my
wallet permits.

No offense was intended. I get tired of people that deny the problems
associated with global warming, and the scientific concensis about
it. It is too big of a problem to ignor.

A study was done recently of "peer reviewed" scientific literature
on the subject of global warming recently. Of 1000 articles selected
randomly from 10 years of published articles on the subject, not one
refuted global warming or refuted human influence in it. The scientific
concensis is clear. Even if it wasn't, can we afford to take the chance?

There is a tendancy in the current administration to ignor real science
whenever it is politically expedient. The number of scientific studies
and reports which have been modified before release by political
"hacks" is scary. Science should not be held captive to politics.

Bob

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:05:30 -0800, # Fred # wrote:


It certainly stops at my house as I'm freezing my ass off for weeks now.
Whenever I turn the thermostat up a notch I know it'll cost me later by
digging deeper into my wallet.

I've been freezing my ass off too. It's been getting down into the 30's
here at night. ****ing cold. Of course it only feels cold to somebody
who has spent a few of the 125 degree summers here in greater phoenix.

Getting down into the 30's? Pffftttttt! How would you guys like to
deal with temperatures another 50 or 60 degrees below that?

Thermal wimps, all of ya! ;-)

Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:39:35 GMT, AZ Nomad
wrote:

I've been freezing my ass off too. It's been getting down into the 30's
here at night. ****ing cold. Of course it only feels cold to somebody
who has spent a few of the 125 degree summers here in greater phoenix.

No offense was intended. I get tired of people that deny the problems
associated with global warming, and the scientific concensis about
it. It is too big of a problem to ignor.

A consensus of liberal "scientists" does not prove anything. Scientists
used to have integrity, but now a "scientist" is anyone who got through
college and is liberal enough to sign petitions for leftist
organizations.

A study was done recently of "peer reviewed" scientific literature

Peer reviewed... something like "A donkey is a horse designed by a
committee."

on the subject of global warming recently. Of 1000 articles selected
randomly from 10 years of published articles on the subject, not one
refuted global warming or refuted human influence in it. The
scientific concensis is clear. Even if it wasn't, can we afford to
take the chance?

The "consensus" is rigged by leftists. Can we afford to turn over our
government to a bunch of nutty zealots? That's the real question. Smart
scientists are too smart to waste time refuting you religions fanatics
because they have real work to do, and no time to scream in unison with
your flock sheep who are all bleating "The sky is falling! The sky is
falling!"

There is a tendancy in the current administration to ignor real
science whenever it is politically expedient.

Just like you leftists create fake science when it is politically
expedient.

The number of scientific
studies and reports which have been modified before release by
political "hacks" is scary. Science should not be held captive to
politics.

I thought you had 100% consensus. Who are these "hacks"? So you lied
about your "consensus." No surprise. I guess to you, people smart enough
not to be scared of the weather are "hacks."

Bert Byfield wrote:
No offense was intended. I get tired of people that deny the problems
associated with global warming, and the scientific concensis about
it. It is too big of a problem to ignor.

A consensus of liberal "scientists" does not prove anything.

How do you recognize a liberal scientist? He disagrees with the Oil
lobby? Or Rush?

Scientists used to have integrity, but now a "scientist" is anyone who got through
college and is liberal enough to sign petitions for leftist organizations.

LOL, same for Usenet. All ya need to be a Usenet genius is to turn on
the ministers of propaganda on right wing radio.

"Bert Byfield" wrote in message
6.128...
No offense was intended. I get tired of people that deny the problems
associated with global warming, and the scientific concensis about
it. It is too big of a problem to ignor.

A consensus of liberal "scientists" does not prove anything. Scientists
used to have integrity, but now a "scientist" is anyone who got through
college and is liberal enough to sign petitions for leftist
organizations.

A study was done recently of "peer reviewed" scientific literature

Peer reviewed... something like "A donkey is a horse designed by a
committee."

on the subject of global warming recently. Of 1000 articles selected
randomly from 10 years of published articles on the subject, not one
refuted global warming or refuted human influence in it. The
scientific concensis is clear. Even if it wasn't, can we afford to
take the chance?

The "consensus" is rigged by leftists. Can we afford to turn over our
government to a bunch of nutty zealots? That's the real question. Smart
scientists are too smart to waste time refuting you religions fanatics
because they have real work to do, and no time to scream in unison with
your flock sheep who are all bleating "The sky is falling! The sky is
falling!"

The government has been in the control of nutty zealots for the
last 6 years.
You obviously have no concept of the scientific method.

There is a tendancy in the current administration to ignor real
science whenever it is politically expedient.

Just like you leftists create fake science when it is politically
expedient.

Real science is not left or right.


The number of scientific
studies and reports which have been modified before release by
political "hacks" is scary. Science should not be held captive to
politics.

I thought you had 100% consensus. Who are these "hacks"? So you lied
about your "consensus." No surprise. I guess to you, people smart enough
not to be scared of the weather are "hacks."

The concensis is of reputable scientists. Again, you have no idea
of what has been happening in the name of politics. Political hacks
are NOT scientists.

Continue to be an ignorant pawn of the right if you like. Fortunately,
the country is coming to its senses, as seen in the last election.

Bob

In article ,
says...
[...] The scientific
concensis is clear. Even if it wasn't, can we afford to take the chance?

So you're saying that if the scientists were to conclude that the
warming that we're experiencing has a natural cause, then Bush would
still be wrong?

There is a tendancy in the current administration to ignor real science
whenever it is politically expedient. The number of scientific studies
and reports which have been modified before release by political
"hacks" is scary. Science should not be held captive to politics.

Cynicism on this subject is due, in part, to numerous prior 'sky is
falling' predictions, also crammed down our throats by the left -
global cooling, for example. Back in the 70's, there was scientific
consensus was that we were in a hopeless spiral toward a new Ice Age
because the Conservatives of the day just didn't give a damn about
pollution. "Fool me once, shame on you..."

Hi Mike,

The following article may provide you with a better understanding as
to what scientists were thinking back then and why.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:13:32 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

[....]

Cynicism on this subject is due, in part, to numerous prior 'sky is
falling' predictions, also crammed down our throats by the left -
global cooling, for example. Back in the 70's, there was scientific
consensus was that we were in a hopeless spiral toward a new Ice Age
because the Conservatives of the day just didn't give a damn about
pollution. "Fool me once, shame on you..."

On Jan 25, 7:51 am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
Hi Mike,

The following article may provide you with a better understanding as
to what scientists were thinking back then and why.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:13:32 -0600, Mike Hartigan

wrote:[....]



Cynicism on this subject is due, in part, to numerous prior 'sky is
falling' predictions, also crammed down our throats by the left -
global cooling, for example. Back in the 70's, there was scientific
consensus was that we were in a hopeless spiral toward a new Ice Age
because the Conservatives of the day just didn't give a damn about
pollution. "Fool me once, shame on you..."- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -



Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.

The thing that makes me most skeptical of global warming being caused
by man, is that whenever it's brought up and discussed, there is never
a discussion about previous warming/cooling cycles that occurred in the
absence of any possible man made effects. Exactly what caused all of
these cycles and how do we know the same effect is occuring now?

As for scientists being in consensus, here's what Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT had to say, about how
established, reputable scientists who disagree are being ignored or
shut out of discussion:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
"So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this
junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not
merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep.
Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some
of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis
that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the
warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on
the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to
encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work
could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann,
a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The
scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate
and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well
as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical
Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a
scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific
journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about
accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are
commonly refused without review as being without interest. However,
even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some
colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under
varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect,"
wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased
temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback
sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally,
criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to
which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this
case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared,
claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and
longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as
"discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find
out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S.
National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge
of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged
support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would
actually happen."

On 25 Jan 2007 06:02:54 -0800, wrote:

Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.

The thing that makes me most skeptical of global warming being caused
by man, is that whenever it's brought up and discussed, there is never
a discussion about previous warming/cooling cycles that occurred in the
absence of any possible man made effects. Exactly what caused all of
these cycles and how do we know the same effect is occuring now?

As for scientists being in consensus, here's what Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT had to say, about how
established, reputable scientists who disagree are being ignored or
shut out of discussion:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
"So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this
junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not
merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep.
Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some
of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis
that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the
warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on
the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to
encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work
could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann,
a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The
scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate
and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well
as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical
Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a
scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific
journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about
accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are
commonly refused without review as being without interest. However,
even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some
colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under
varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect,"
wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased
temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback
sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally,
criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to
which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this
case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared,
claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and
longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as
"discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find
out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S.
National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge
of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged
support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would
actually happen."

On Jan 25, 8:02 am, wrote:

The thing that makes me most skeptical of global warming being caused
by man, is that whenever it's brought up and discussed, there is never
a discussion about previous warming/cooling cycles that occurred in the
absence of any possible man made effects. Exactly what caused all of
these cycles and how do we know the same effect is occuring now?

Indeed! If it wasn't for cyclical warming, the glacier that is
credited with carving out the Great Lakes would still be a giant block
of ice.

Also absent from these discussions is the fact that Mars is currently
experiencing a warming trend that roughly parallels the earth's.
AFAIK, the rovers we sent are not burning fossil fuels, so what
explains that? The sun has been burning a bit brighter in recent
years, but I'm sure that's just coincidence ;-)

My apologies; I managed to lose the text of my reply.

On 25 Jan 2007 06:02:54 -0800, wrote:


Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.

Let's be clear. New York City did NOT ban the use of margarine in
restaurants; the ban pertains to artificial trans fats and margarine
that does not contain artificial trans fats can still be used.

If you want to learn more about the butter versus margarine debate,
see:

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heart.../margarine.htm

And this is not something new. Nutrionists have warned for years that
diets high in saturated and tans fats can greatly increase our risk of
obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke and colon cancer.
Concerns over hydrogenated oils date back at least twenty-five years.

The thing that makes me most skeptical of global warming being caused
by man, is that whenever it's brought up and discussed, there is never
a discussion about previous warming/cooling cycles that occurred in the
absence of any possible man made effects. Exactly what caused all of
these cycles and how do we know the same effect is occuring now?

You mean such as this:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

or this?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

As for scientists being in consensus, here's what Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT had to say, about how
established, reputable scientists who disagree are being ignored or
shut out of discussion:

I presume this is the same Richard Lindzen who has testified on behalf
of the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal miners and
coal-fired utilities and OPEC, right?

See:
http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/417

Cheers,
Paul

Just curious - why are those with perceived conflicts of interest on
the 'anti-warming' side seen as self-serving, while those on the
'pro-warming' side are given a pass? All scientists get funding from
somewhere and, as such, all have the opportunity to be self-serving.
How is it that the only ones deemed to be honest on this issue are
those who agree with Al Gore?

On Jan 25, 10:00 am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
I presume this is the same Richard Lindzen who has testified on behalf
of the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal miners and
coal-fired utilities and OPEC, right?

See:http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/417

Cheers,
Paul

In article .com,
says...

Just curious - why are those with perceived conflicts of interest on
the 'anti-warming' side seen as self-serving, while those on the
'pro-warming' side are given a pass? All scientists get funding from
somewhere and, as such, all have the opportunity to be self-serving.
How is it that the only ones deemed to be honest on this issue are
those who agree with Al Gore?


They get funding from places like the NSF and NOAA.

How does that align with your idea that their work is "self-serving"?

Banty

On Jan 25, 11:00 am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
My apologies; I managed to lose the text of my reply.

On 25 Jan 2007 06:02:54 -0800, wrote:



Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.Let's be clear. New York City did NOT ban the use of margarine in
restaurants; the ban pertains to artificial trans fats and margarine
that does not contain artificial trans fats can still be used.

Yes, it is transfat that has been banned from NYC restaurants., which
is what I had in mind when I wrote the above. And of course margarine
that is made without transfats is still allowed. But it doens't
change the fact that 25 years ago, scientists claimed that magarine
made from transfat should be used to replace butter, which was supposed
to be bad. Margarines containing transfat were widely marketed,
complete with health benefit statements. And that proved to bad
advice, at least if they are right this time.

And the irony of what NYC is doing is that had they passed similar laws
25 years ago, they would have forced restaurants to replace butter with
transfat. That's one reason why what NYC is doing is just plain
stupid. There is plenty of information out there already about
transfat. Many commercial products have already eliminated them, as
have many fast food chains. More laws aren't needed, especially given
that the "experts" have been wrong before. Individuals can decide for
themselves what they want to eat.



If you want to learn more about the butter versus margarine debate,
see:

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heart...evention/askdi...

And this is not something new. Nutrionists have warned for years that
diets high in saturated and tans fats can greatly increase our risk of
obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke and colon cancer.
Concerns over hydrogenated oils date back at least twenty-five years.

Now that I disagree with There may have been some concern raised
starting 25 years ago, but what about the late 60s, 70s when the
experts told us to eat margarine, which was full of transfat, instead
of butter? And I would say the real consensus against transfat did
not occur until the last decade or so. Sure, you can go back and say
there was some research that suggested problems, but that is 20/20
hindsight.





The thing that makes me most skeptical of global warming being caused
by man, is that whenever it's brought up and discussed, there is never
a discussion about previous warming/cooling cycles that occurred in the
absence of any possible man made effects. Exactly what caused all of
these cycles and how do we know the same effect is occuring now?You mean such as this:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html

or this?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/


These references just talk about general factors that they think
contributed to previous warming/cooling cycles. Which is exactly the
point. No one knows for sure. Look at the graph going back 400K
years. It shows 5 peaks in temperature and CO2. Since man can only
possibly be responsible for the current peak, what explains the other
4? Also note that while the current peak is the largest of the 4
complete cycles, 4 cycles and 400K years is a just a brief instant in
Earth's history. We don;'t know how high other cycles got.

And then there is the issue of cause and effect. Just because CO2 and
temp rise and fail together doesn't mean CO2 caused the temp rise. It
could just as well be that the rise in temp caused the CO2 increase.
Especially since other gases, like Methane also have risen and fallen
with temp. Just like a soda can releases more CO2 when it's warm, so
too the oceans are less capable of holding gasses when the temp rises.
This is especially interesting given that temp peaks and leads CO2 by
about 800 years.

Finally, we also have the issue of how reliable estimates are of
exactly what the Earth's temperature was 400K years ago. No one was
around taking measurements, so we are left relying on proxies, which
are virtually impossible to verify.






As for scientists being in consensus, here's what Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT had to say, about how
established, reputable scientists who disagree are being ignored or
shut out of discussion:I presume this is the same Richard Lindzen who has testified on behalf
of the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal miners and
coal-fired utilities and OPEC, right?

See:http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/417

Cheers,
Paul



Does the fact that this MIT professor has testified on behalf of
industry make him any less credible than scientists that speak out for
whacko liberal environmental organizations that have no balance and
oppose everything?

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
My apologies; I managed to lose the text of my reply.

On 25 Jan 2007 06:02:54 -0800, wrote:

Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.

Let's be clear. New York City did NOT ban the use of margarine in
restaurants; the ban pertains to artificial trans fats and margarine
that does not contain artificial trans fats can still be used.

It was a Red Herring anyway.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

I suggest reading Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear." I was widely
condemned by the environmentalists but the main message is not the
environment but using the fear of the perceived crisis to get money.

I have also read Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance". Recall it was 10
chapters, one with summary of potential crisis and the rest political
polemic.

The jury is still out on global warming. Indications are that it is
happening but relative contributions of man and nature are still
largely unknown. We do know that the earth underwent severe heating
and cooling phenomenae before man walked the earth.

It has also been my observation that most scientists are Liberals or
Socialists. It is pretty hard to spend 8-10 years in a university
getting a Ph.D. without it rubbing off from the Liberal/Socialist
faculties.

Frank

On Jan 25, 12:33 pm, Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...



Just curious - why are those with perceived conflicts of interest on
the 'anti-warming' side seen as self-serving, while those on the
'pro-warming' side are given a pass? All scientists get funding from
somewhere and, as such, all have the opportunity to be self-serving.
How is it that the only ones deemed to be honest on this issue are
those who agree with Al Gore?They get funding from places like the NSF and NOAA.

How does that align with your idea that their work is "self-serving"?

Banty

Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.


Somewhere I've read margarine was invented, before it was placed on our
dinner tables, for the consumption by hogs. Great stuff, cheap, a profit
maker, and fatten the hogs in record time for market. But the farmers
noticed the hogs were dying off in great numbers so it was banned. So what
did they do with all that surplus margarine? Some entrepreneur noticed with
a little coloring and flavoring added, it could pass for butter substitute.
How it was advertised as heather than butter I never know but I guess in
those days we thought cigarettes were cool too.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:31:52 -0800, "# Fred #"
wrote:

Or how about some of the other bandwagons that the scientific/political
community jumped on, only to be proven wrong? Remember how in the
70s they told us that because of fat, eating butter was going to kill
us? So, they recommended replacing it with margarine, made out of
transfats. Now, according to current thinking, it turns out the
margarine was far worse. So bad, in fact, that NYC just past a law
barring it from all restaurants.


Somewhere I've read margarine was invented, before it was placed on our
dinner tables, for the consumption by hogs. Great stuff, cheap, a profit
maker, and fatten the hogs in record time for market. But the farmers
noticed the hogs were dying off in great numbers so it was banned. So what
did they do with all that surplus margarine? Some entrepreneur noticed with
a little coloring and flavoring added, it could pass for butter substitute.
How it was advertised as heather than butter I never know but I guess in
those days we thought cigarettes were cool too.


I was under the impression that margerine came into being mostly
because during WWII, for reasons beyond my understanding, butter
and other dairy products were rationed. Maybe that was oleo,
though.

Frank wrote:
I suggest reading Michael Crichton's, "State of Fear." I was widely
condemned by the environmentalists but the main message is not the
environment but using the fear of the perceived crisis to get money.

Did Crichton mention the use of 9/11 with regard to "using fear?"

On 25 Jan 2007 09:58:16 -0800, wrote:

Yes, it is transfat that has been banned from NYC restaurants., which
is what I had in mind when I wrote the above. And of course margarine
that is made without transfats is still allowed. But it doens't
change the fact that 25 years ago, scientists claimed that magarine
made from transfat should be used to replace butter, which was supposed
to be bad. Margarines containing transfat were widely marketed,
complete with health benefit statements. And that proved to bad
advice, at least if they are right this time.

Trans fats were added to a whole range of processed foods, including
margarine, for a several reasons but, principally, to improve taste
and to increase product shelf life. So there's no confusion, it was
not added to margarine because it was thought to offer any particular
heath benefits, in of itself. There were no recognized health risks
with the introduction of trans fats early one, but they became evident
over time, much in the same way the risks of continuing to add
increasing amounts of CO2 to our earth's atmosphere. That's pretty
much how science works.

And as the link provided below shows, the Cleveland Clinic still
recommends the consumption of liquid and tub margarine over butter.

And the irony of what NYC is doing is that had they passed similar laws
25 years ago, they would have forced restaurants to replace butter with
transfat. That's one reason why what NYC is doing is just plain
stupid. There is plenty of information out there already about
transfat. Many commercial products have already eliminated them, as
have many fast food chains. More laws aren't needed, especially given
that the "experts" have been wrong before. Individuals can decide for
themselves what they want to eat.

I didn't realize I, as a consumer, had the choice of specifying my
meals be trans fat free. How does that work? Do I tell McDonalds,
Wendy's, Buger King, KFC, Taco Bell, et. all that I want it done "my
way"? When I sit down at a fine restaurant, do I ask the waiter which
foods contain trans fats? Would the restaurant and its staff even
know? Somehow, I don't think so.

If you want to learn more about the butter versus margarine debate,
see:


http://www.clevelandclinic.org/heart...evention/askdi...

And this is not something new. Nutrionists have warned for years that
diets high in saturated and tans fats can greatly increase our risk of
obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart attack, stroke and colon cancer.
Concerns over hydrogenated oils date back at least twenty-five years.

Now that I disagree with There may have been some concern raised
starting 25 years ago, but what about the late 60s, 70s when the
experts told us to eat margarine, which was full of transfat, instead
of butter? And I would say the real consensus against transfat did
not occur until the last decade or so. Sure, you can go back and say
there was some research that suggested problems, but that is 20/20
hindsight.

Isn't this much like the whole debate over global climate change? You
may be surprised to know scientists first warned of the dangers of
increased CO2 levels more than one hundred years ago. Here we are in
2007 having this conversation. What do you expect?

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...985653,00.html

[....]

These references just talk about general factors that they think
contributed to previous warming/cooling cycles. Which is exactly the
point. No one knows for sure. Look at the graph going back 400K
years. It shows 5 peaks in temperature and CO2. Since man can only
possibly be responsible for the current peak, what explains the other
4? Also note that while the current peak is the largest of the 4
complete cycles, 4 cycles and 400K years is a just a brief instant in
Earth's history. We don;'t know how high other cycles got.

And then there is the issue of cause and effect. Just because CO2 and
temp rise and fail together doesn't mean CO2 caused the temp rise. It
could just as well be that the rise in temp caused the CO2 increase.
Especially since other gases, like Methane also have risen and fallen
with temp. Just like a soda can releases more CO2 when it's warm, so
too the oceans are less capable of holding gasses when the temp rises.
This is especially interesting given that temp peaks and leads CO2 by
about 800 years.

Finally, we also have the issue of how reliable estimates are of
exactly what the Earth's temperature was 400K years ago. No one was
around taking measurements, so we are left relying on proxies, which
are virtually impossible to verify.


This article may help explain the difference between natural and
man-made carbon cycles:

http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/rele...ec-9-2003.html


As for scientists being in consensus, here's what Richard Lindzen,
Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT had to say, about how
established, reputable scientists who disagree are being ignored or
shut out of discussion

:I presume this is the same Richard Lindzen who has testified on behalf
of the Western Fuels Association, a consortium of coal miners and
coal-fired utilities and OPEC, right?

See:http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/reply/417

Cheers,
Paul

Does the fact that this MIT professor has testified on behalf of
industry make him any less credible than scientists that speak out for
whacko liberal environmental organizations that have no balance and
oppose everything?

When a scientist is paid to act as a lobbyist, it raises a red flag.
If someone were paid by the tobacco industry to tell us that smoking
is good for our health, would you not be a tad sceptical?

Cheers,
Paul

In article , Paul M. Eldridge wrote:

Isn't this much like the whole debate over global climate change? You
may be surprised to know scientists first warned of the dangers of
increased CO2 levels more than one hundred years ago. Here we are in
2007 having this conversation. What do you expect?

See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/st...985653,00.html

And in between, the climate scientists warned us of the
impending ice age.

What do you expect? Hot air?

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are literally thousands of scientists from a broad range of
disciplines, both in government, academia and in privately funded
research, who are drawing the same conclusion -- the ever increasing
burning of fossil fuels is altering our global climate. When research
is published in peer review journals and subjected to intense
scrutiny, one expects our understanding of this (or any other issue)
will generally move forward. While not altogether perfect, I have
much greater confidence in this approach than I do the work of someone
who is, in effect, a paid lobbyist.

Cheers,
Paul

On 25 Jan 2007 09:19:37 -0800, wrote:

Just curious - why are those with perceived conflicts of interest on
the 'anti-warming' side seen as self-serving, while those on the
'pro-warming' side are given a pass? All scientists get funding from
somewhere and, as such, all have the opportunity to be self-serving.
How is it that the only ones deemed to be honest on this issue are
those who agree with Al Gore?

And if they were to predict that based upon past (natural) heating and
cooling cycles, one assumes there's a good chance they would be right.
Now with other, potentially more powerful human influences at work,
the direction of climate change could very well be reversed. And if
that's the case, we may have dodged that particular bullet, but
oversteered too far in the opposite direction.

Cheers,
Paul

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:48:27 GMT, (Malcolm Hoar)
wrote:

And in between, the climate scientists warned us of the
impending ice age.

What do you expect? Hot air?

So the Left misinterpreted what the scientists were saying (that's
called 'lying', in the political arena today) and crammed it down our
collective throats in order to further a political agenda. Perhaps,
had I single-quoted 'scientific consensus' in my comment regarding
global cooling, it would have been more to the point.

There's a curious statement made in that article:

"[...] they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely
appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30
years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of
climate science."

In other words, "Last time, were didn't know what we were talking
about. This time, we're really, really sure!"

(that doesn't sound just a little bit arrogant to you?)

Note, I'm not saying that global warming is a myth. Indeed, the
controversy is not over the warming, itself, rather it's over its
causes and what, if anything, we should do about it. I'm merely
pointing out that the skepticism is not without just cause.

In article ,
says...
Hi Mike,

The following article may provide you with a better understanding as
to what scientists were thinking back then and why.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Cheers,
Paul

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:13:32 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

[....]

Cynicism on this subject is due, in part, to numerous prior 'sky is
falling' predictions, also crammed down our throats by the left -
global cooling, for example. Back in the 70's, there was scientific
consensus was that we were in a hopeless spiral toward a new Ice Age
because the Conservatives of the day just didn't give a damn about
pollution. "Fool me once, shame on you..."

Hi Mike,

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:46:59 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

So the Left misinterpreted what the scientists were saying (that's
called 'lying', in the political arena today) and crammed it down our
collective throats in order to further a political agenda. Perhaps,
had I single-quoted 'scientific consensus' in my comment regarding
global cooling, it would have been more to the point.

I don't follow what you're saying here. What exactly did the "Left"
misinterpret and what lies did our [politicians?] tell us?

There's a curious statement made in that article:

"[...] they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely
appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30
years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of
climate science."

In other words, "Last time, were didn't know what we were talking
about. This time, we're really, really sure!"

(that doesn't sound just a little bit arrogant to you?)

Sorry, I disagree. I read this to be "there's a strong possibility
the earth is entering another cooling phase (perhaps not an
unreasonable assumption given what climate scientists then knew about
the earth's natural temperature cycles), but until we do more
research, we really don't know for sure". That really doesn't strike
me as arrogant at all; to the contrary, it strikes me as being humble,
truthful and prudently cautious.

I think it's fair to say our understanding of global climate has
evolved considerably over the past thirty years and certainly the
tools available to scientists are far more rich and diverse. In terms
of computing power alone, my laptop is far more powerful than any
supercomputer available thirty years ago. And look at how information
is shared today; with the internet, it's immediate/real time. Thirty
years ago, this type of information would have been shared largely by
printed journals, with perhaps four to six months lead-time.

These are very different worlds. Back in 1977, I would be driving a
Plymouth Volarie. Do you think anyone would be driving a car like
that today?

Note, I'm not saying that global warming is a myth. Indeed, the
controversy is not over the warming, itself, rather it's over its
causes and what, if anything, we should do about it. I'm merely
pointing out that the skepticism is not without just cause.

Cheers,
Paul

In article ,
says...
Hi Mike,

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:46:59 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

So the Left misinterpreted what the scientists were saying (that's
called 'lying', in the political arena today) and crammed it down our
collective throats in order to further a political agenda. Perhaps,
had I single-quoted 'scientific consensus' in my comment regarding
global cooling, it would have been more to the point.

I don't follow what you're saying here. What exactly did the "Left"
misinterpret and what lies did our [politicians?] tell us?

The article cites the faulty conclusions based on the evidence that
was (or was not) available at the time. The global cooling version
of 'the sky is falling' was the result. The 'lying' comment was a
reference to the reasons for our current foray into Iraq.

There's a curious statement made in that article:

"[...] they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely
appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30
years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of
climate science."

In other words, "Last time, were didn't know what we were talking
about. This time, we're really, really sure!"

(that doesn't sound just a little bit arrogant to you?)

Sorry, I disagree. I read this to be "there's a strong possibility
the earth is entering another cooling phase (perhaps not an
unreasonable assumption given what climate scientists then knew about
the earth's natural temperature cycles), but until we do more
research, we really don't know for sure". That really doesn't strike
me as arrogant at all; to the contrary, it strikes me as being humble,
truthful and prudently cautious.

The implication that 'this time we got it right' is where I see
arrogance. There's no need for more research - we've already nailed
it.

I think it's fair to say our understanding of global climate has
evolved considerably over the past thirty years and certainly the
tools available to scientists are far more rich and diverse. In terms
of computing power alone, my laptop is far more powerful than any
supercomputer available thirty years ago. And look at how information
is shared today; with the internet, it's immediate/real time. Thirty
years ago, this type of information would have been shared largely by
printed journals, with perhaps four to six months lead-time.

We've come a long way in thirty years, to be sure. That's what we
were saying back then, too. And we were just as confident (arrogant)
in our predictions then as we are today. We'll be saying the same
thirty years from now and we'll be smug because we'll finally know
everything. But the sophisticated computer models that are making
these dire predictions today still can't accurately 'predict' what's
happened in the past. Yet we're trying to set policy based on what
they're telling us about the future. Consider the most recent
hurricane season. We were told to prepare for a record season in
terms of both number and intensity. (oops!)

These are very different worlds. Back in 1977, I would be driving a
Plymouth Volarie. Do you think anyone would be driving a car like
that today?

I wouldn't have been caught driving one even then ;-)

Note, I'm not saying that global warming is a myth. Indeed, the
controversy is not over the warming, itself, rather it's over its
causes and what, if anything, we should do about it. I'm merely
pointing out that the skepticism is not without just cause.

Cheers,
Paul

Hi Mike,

I've taken the liberty to snip some of the previous text, in an effort
to keep things from becoming too unwieldy. Hopefully, I haven't made
our conversation too difficult to follow.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:26:37 -0600, Mike Hartigan
wrote:

I don't follow what you're saying here. What exactly did the "Left"
misinterpret and what lies did our [politicians?] tell us?

The article cites the faulty conclusions based on the evidence that
was (or was not) available at the time. The global cooling version
of 'the sky is falling' was the result. The 'lying' comment was a
reference to the reasons for our current foray into Iraq.

Researchers had not formulated a cohesive "voice" on global climate
change until quite recently; if there was one clear and unified voice
thirty or forty years ago I'm simply not aware of it. Now, with the
advent of better tools that allow us to collect and analyze more data,
with greater resources available to undertake this work and with the
collaborative efforts of many thousands of people in a wide range of
disciplines from all over the world, the evidence is becoming evermore
clear and some would argue irrefutable.

In any event, let's take a closer look at the reasons why this author
claims climate researchers may have mistakenly believed our climate
would be cooling, not warming as is now generally understood.

The first appears to be the most damning -- that a thirty-year cooling
period between the 1940s and 1970s served as a public canvas upon
which these discussions were sketched, and that in the absence of good
data, the resulting interpretations were generally less well refined
than they should have been. Fair enough.

His second argument is that the earth's natural temperature rhythms
had led many to believe we are about due to enter another cooling
phase and if you view the graphs, that doesn't seem unreasonable. But
as the author notes, we shouldn't consider the next ice age as
"predictable" nor "imminent" and since human activity also affects
global climate, these natural forces may no longer be sufficient, in
of themselves, to make global cooling a fate d'compli.

Thirdly, and I believe this to be the most crucial of all, air borne
pollution (largely sulphate aerosols and fine particulates) were
generally understood to have a cooling effect on our climate. Back
then, we were pumping ever increasing amounts of sulphur and fine
particulates into the air, which was reducing the amount of sunlight
reaching the earth's surface, i.e., "global dimming". Just a short
time later, two very important transformations occurred. One,
political and legislative measures, due in large part to public
concerns over acid rain and urban air quality, led to the introduction
of new technology that greatly lessened the amount of sulphur and
particulate we emitted (i.e., scrubbers and precipitators on coal
fired plants, the switch to natural gas and low-sulphur coal, the
reduction in sulphur in diesel and other petroleum-based fuels, etc.)
and, secondly, the remarkable and unprecedented slowing in the growth
of electricity demand. Electricity demand up until the late 70's was
growing at seven to ten per cent per year; today, it runs in the range
of one to two per cent. Electricity demand here in North America was
literally doubling every seven years and utility forecasters predicted
this rate of growth would continue indefinitely and, of course, that
much of it would be met by dirty, coal-fired generation. However,
after the energy shocks of the 70's and with the corresponding
structural changes to our economies, this new growth disappeared
almost overnight. It's therefore unfair to fault climate researchers
for either of these two unforeseen developments.

The last point is with regards to "interpretations of future changes
in the Earth's orbit" that have been undergone further revision and
refinement. As our understanding of this relationship has evolved,
the potential cooling effects have been scaled back. When new data
comes to light, we're sometimes forced to rethink or adjust these
connections. That's just how these things work out or, in other
words, crap happens.

There's a curious statement made in that article:

"[...] they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely
appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30
years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of
climate science."

In other words, "Last time, were didn't know what we were talking
about. This time, we're really, really sure!"

(that doesn't sound just a little bit arrogant to you?)

Sorry, I disagree. I read this to be "there's a strong possibility
the earth is entering another cooling phase (perhaps not an
unreasonable assumption given what climate scientists then knew about
the earth's natural temperature cycles), but until we do more
research, we really don't know for sure". That really doesn't strike
me as arrogant at all; to the contrary, it strikes me as being humble,
truthful and prudently cautious.

The implication that 'this time we got it right' is where I see
arrogance. There's no need for more research - we've already nailed
it.

I don't think anyone is claiming we've finished the exam and can now
put our pencils down. To the contrary, I think it's safe to say
climate researchers want to dig deeper and continue collecting data so
that our understanding is further enhanced. As I said before, our
world is evolving, we're impacting our earth in many different ways;
nothing stays the same. I don't see any arrogance or smugness in this
whatsoever.

I think it's fair to say our understanding of global climate has
evolved considerably over the past thirty years and certainly the
tools available to scientists are far more rich and diverse. In terms
of computing power alone, my laptop is far more powerful than any
supercomputer available thirty years ago. And look at how information
is shared today; with the internet, it's immediate/real time. Thirty
years ago, this type of information would have been shared largely by
printed journals, with perhaps four to six months lead-time.

We've come a long way in thirty years, to be sure. That's what we
were saying back then, too. And we were just as confident (arrogant)
in our predictions then as we are today. We'll be saying the same
thirty years from now and we'll be smug because we'll finally know
everything. But the sophisticated computer models that are making
these dire predictions today still can't accurately 'predict' what's
happened in the past. Yet we're trying to set policy based on what
they're telling us about the future. Consider the most recent
hurricane season. We were told to prepare for a record season in
terms of both number and intensity. (oops!)

Scientists can't sit down at a computer, press a button and expect the
correct answer to spit out every time. Our understanding of weather
and climate, like most things in this world, is incomplete and will
likely remain so well into the future. The real question is, are we
getting any better at this? Personally, I think we are; others may
disagree. Will there be missteps along the way? Yes, but, on the
whole, I expect we'll continue to improve with every passing day.

The other question I have to ask is how long are we prepared to sit on
our hands and do nothing waiting for the proverbial smoking gun to
materialize, whatever it may be. Can you tell me exactly what it is
you want before you'd be willing to take some course of action? And
can you tell me how you would be able to determine the validity of
this smoking gun or the credibility of its presenters?

These are very different worlds. Back in 1977, I would be driving a
Plymouth Volarie. Do you think anyone would be driving a car like
that today?

I wouldn't have been caught driving one even then ;-)

Really? So what did you drive? A Pinto? A Vega? A Pacer?

Note, I'm not saying that global warming is a myth. Indeed, the
controversy is not over the warming, itself, rather it's over its
causes and what, if anything, we should do about it. I'm merely
pointing out that the skepticism is not without just cause.

Cheers,
Paul