Close this Advertisement

Commentary: Little Objectivity on Climate Change

  • Aug 03, 2010

Dear Editor:

I continue to be dismayed by the non-objective approach to the global warming/climate change issue as consistently presented by your newsletter and EPA. I just submitted a brief comment to the following article encouraging people to consider alternative or dissenting opinions rather than blindly accept what EPA and other self-serving organizations write and conclude about global warming:

EPA Rejects 10 Endangerment Challenge Petitions

I would similarly ask you to remove the blinders and consider the valuable opinions of the numerous scientists who hold to an alternative opinion to that which is so dogmatically adhered to by EPA. If you have not already reviewed the assembled comments in the U.S. Senate Minority Report, you may wish to take a look (click on this link to go to the report: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf.

Unlike EPA’s sources, most of the scientists quoted have no self-serving reasons to continue promoting the carbon control agenda. It is so obvious that many people and corporations have jumped on board in this movement because it will benefit them financially, yield more power to them or their organization, or help accomplish goals related to the redistribution of the world’s wealth.

I recognize that some people do honestly believe that mankind is causing global warming so we must also be able to stop it by implementing drastic changes in the way we live. Sadly, it is true that false ideas and theories can be believed by so many people when they are repeated often enough and portrayed in such sophisticated ways by people and organizations that have power and money (federal money consumed internally by agencies as well as money that flows into federal contracts, stimulus projects, etc) .

This following link takes you to another report that further demonstrates the fallacy of the consensus argument. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

In my opinion, we are making a huge mistake to continue down this pathway to control carbon emissions and to add regulation after regulation that will adversely impact our nation. Resources have been diverted from programs that are much more important to the well-being of mankind. The coming increased costs of electricity which will accompany EPA’s onslaught of the coal electric power industry will severely impact everyone. How much will it cost to air-condition your home after all of EPA new coal plant rules are implemented?

I would like to point out that I have worked in the environmental field for over 30 years, the past 18 as the director of the Kansas Bureau of Waste Management. I have observed many trends in environmental regulatory issues over the years and the move to control carbon is by far the most political and least scientific. As I began this note, I repeat that I am frustrated and dismayed to see how the once noble pursuits of environmental protection and good stewardship have turned into deceptive fanaticism driven by non-meritorious motives.

Bill Bider

Comments

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 Larry Alexander TN

I have made arguments for years similar to Mr. Bider and concur in his analysis. I recall a recent publication in Science Daily by the USGS,I believe, which made climate correlations to the sun relative to the earths spin and precessing, and which did not have fabrications. The three most detrimental pieces of legislation for economic growth as used by the bureaucrats are the Clean Water Act,The Endangered Species Act and The Clean Air Act. They started as good legislation and evolved into costly impediments.

Thu, Oct 7, 2010 Jeffrey Miller United States

The issue is not whether global warming is or isn't real! The issue is that there is loss of dialog on the matter. Modern science is founded on Galilean Scientific Theory of observation, not consensus. Ignoring and name calling does not advance global warming theory. It is up to the scientific community to continue use of the scientific theory regardless what the news publishes on the matter. The real potential loss is not whether AGW is or is not real, but the inability of the scientific community to rely on Scientific Theory and alternative views.

Tue, Oct 5, 2010 John Coulson Alamosa, Colorado

I am afraid that you astute individuals are wasting your time on this issue. Although, I concur with everyone on this dispute. The masses are being bombard daily on every news channel telling us that it is man causes this global warming, when in fact they are simply misdirecting everyone on purpose. For what reason? Over monetary gain! Case in point, I just read a report stating that the off shore-winds (east coast) can easily generate enough power for the entire coastline, but yet you will never hear anything concerning this possible benefit to man. To me its like a dog chasing its tail, we say no way, while the the news tells everyone it is so. At this juncture, everyone believes the news media and not the scientific community. Sadly, the truth (concerning this topic) is not new and in fact has been around since the 1930's.

Fri, Oct 1, 2010

It is time more professionals in the environmental field speak out against the man-made climate change hoax. The generation of weatlh my workers and companies in the U.S, provides for funding to permit application of environmental controls to keep our earth clean. BUT to suggest that our actions can impact the world to the level of changing the climinate is a gross exaggeration of man's importance in this world. Everyone must return to values of honor and integrity in all aspects of their lives.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 Mark Michigan

Hello: This is a breath of fresh air for this newsletter as compared to the usual writings by public policy officials or scientists doing studies because they've received global warming grants. It isn't happening folks. Nobody even knows what the so called "normal" temperature is suppose to be. What is "normal" for the earth? Normal has changed throughout history. Even worse is the continuous use of models with inputs that are designed for a worse case (garbage in/garbage out); the models have been next to useless. These models are the Playstations of the scientific research community.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010

As someone with advanced engineering degrees and who has over 30 years experience in environmental engineering and science, I find it profoundly ironic that we are unable to model the weather for more than 3 or 4 days before chaos takes over and drives the weather in another direction; yet, we are willing to depend upon GCC models which project climate change past a 100 year period. Does anyone see the absurdity, not to mention hubris, of trying to model the complexity of the atmosphere with a 100 year time horizon?

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 Dr. Duane Kalamazoo

On this we can agree: there is precious little objectivity on climate change. Mr. Bider would say that the Arctic Ocean ice sheet and Greenland's ice cap are melting because of some other reason than man's production of greenhouse gases. I don't believe any credible scientific study has supported that view.
Nevertheless, suppose for a moment that he is right, that sunspots or hot pants or something other than our emissions is the principal trigger for an increase in ocean temperature, the above-mentioned melting at high latitudes, and similar atmospheric warming at high latitudes. Why isn't he and those who think like him concerned about this? Why is he willing to ignore the observable warming and the possible consequences of that warming? Aren't we stewards of the Earth? Don't we have responsibility for the welfare of the people of the Earth and the Earth's living systems? Where are his suggestions for dealing with these changes, other than doing nothing and blaming the scientists for pointing them out? Responsible people try to pass on an Earth to their children which does not represent a greater threat to their health and livelihoods and enjoyment and peace. Because he believes that climate change is either not happening or not due to man, I guess his proposal is to keep building coal-fired power plants and let the (ice) chips fall where they may. I would like to see a more honest and open discussion of this issue than I guess is customary or possible in a forum like this, where everybody is preening and posing while posting, but not really open minded or willing to consider evidence-based ideas.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 D CA

Likewise, I'll add my thanks for and agreement with Bill's and BB's positions. As a former 1970's weather forecaster, I believe that I have some unique insights and professional knowledge of the technical issues at hand. Additionally, I've been involved with air quality regulatory issues in a quasi-judicial position as well as have been employed in the environmental industry for over 4 decades.

I firmly believe that it will be found that our Earth's climate is an amazing, self-regulating body that is quite capable of supporting our population & technological growth -- even with the somewhat recent (in geological time) increase in emissions of Green House Gases (GHC). Yes, increased CO2 by man will potentially have an effect of a slight increase in ambient averaged global temperatures but this will be more than offset by the change in weather patterns such as the Jet Stream and other natural negative feedbacks still being found ( eg - http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/biogeochemical-feedbacks-important-co2). But no where near the envisoned, computer-modeled doom's day consequences one currently, and constantly, is being politically exposed to.

Considering that the historical/geological climate records show the Earth has varied between extensive Global Ice Ages and short intervals of moderated temperatures, I'll take the latter rather than the former, any day.

It's time for purported 'professional environmental' publications, societies and journals to revisit their ethics and quit their seemingly biased rent-seeking.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 Larry AZ

It's interesting to me that a response to the item on EPA's Rejection of the Endangerment Challengers Petitions appears in the Water & Waste Water Newsletter. Is this an attempt to show impartiality? Anyway, as I've previously commented I believe the earth is in a natural climatic cycle. The minor impacts of man to this natural cycle pale in comparison to nature. This is obvious to anyone who has ever been impacted by a tornado, hurricane, eruption of a volcano, or any other force of nature. It is clear to the impartial observer that those who accept the bogus claims of a minority of scientists on this issue have something to gain, e.g. Al Gore, GE, etc. For anyone that thinks they get impartial reporting from the "main stream media" I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about.

Thu, Aug 5, 2010 MAC Ohio

It is interisting to note that the Senate minority report Bill refers to was edited by Senator Orrin Hach a well known represenative of a major oil producing state and spokesman for carbon intensive industries. I suspect some major editing and selective use of data ocured in this report, sort of like Fox News does. One of the major principles of science is you can not be selective of what facts you will consider in forming a theory. You must consider all the evidence. If you search long enough, you can find someone who will endorse anything. Arn't their still a few "flat earthers" around? Isn't it just as likely that those who are profiting from carbon intensive activities are biased toward protecting the source of thier incomes? I can see that the seasons are getting longer and the winters are milder in the 50 years I have been observing. How else can this observation be explained? It is hard to believe that all the changes mankind has made to the natural enviroment are not having some impact!

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 conservit

Lord Monckton appears to be one of the "frothing endorsers of pseudo scientific positions", in this case the labeling of climate change as fraud. He is not a scientist - he studied classics and journalism and has been unsuccessful in seeking a seat in the house of lords. He did invent a puzzle in the 1990s and admits to fabricating a story about selling his ancestral home to pay off the two mathematicians that solved it. I believe that the science behind the IPCC report is solid. I find the increase in CO2, the loss of arctic sea ice and the mass wasting of glaciers to be compelling. If there is to be a conversation on this issue, let's deal with facts rather than ad hominem attacks and attribution of nefarious motives. I am a chemist and environmental scientist with more than 40 years of industrial experience.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 Ernie ProSaf&Foren Boise

CO2 is not now and has never been responsible for driving climate change and I have supported this position for a number of years with factual data having nothing to do with Polar Bears or Ice Channels in the far north. By volume CO2 is 1% of Greenhouse Gases (GHG's) and only 3% of that is anthropogenic. I can go on with Vostok Ice Studies and much more but mainly wanted to give Bill above a "well-Done" for his response. Anyone who swallows the Al Gore Hoax will, in time, be sorely embarrassed and will have to quietly fade into the woodwork. It has, in fact been cooling Globally since 1998 and yes the 387 ppm (CO2) has moved little. By the way, the largest and most dominant GHG is WATER VAPOR, 95% compared to CO2's 1%. That equates to about 20,000 - 30,000 ppm averaged over the planet compared to 387 ppm CO2. SO KEEP UP THE PUSH BILL BIDER! You're doing fine. I think you can disregard the only repsonse Mr. Volcano made above as is typical of that crowd

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 Boston MA

Some people insist on sticking their heads in the sand and they refuse to see the facts. I'm glad that most people understand and look at the issue of global warming.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 BB

Thank you Bill for so eloquently expressing what I too see as a problem with both the EPA and this supposed industrial newsletter. I have also been appalled at both for becoming frothing endorsers of pseudo scientific positions. As an engineer with over 25 years of broad industrial and government regulatory experience, I do not appreciate how our nation's citizens, regulators, legislators and apparently the editors of this magazine can so blindly lead our nation off the cliff on this issue like a bunch of lemmings. Thanks, Bill, for your efforts to try to get these these organizations back in check. The EPA needs to be balanced and willing to look at all the science, not just the science that the staunch environmentalists put forth. So far, they haven't been willing to consider other scientists views on this issue.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 dave Canada

yes! excellent piece. The 31,486+ scientist who question man-made global warming has to count for something. and the 2500 scientists who are on UN/Govt payroll are simply pushing this power hungry corporate/UN agenda. can anyone say.. 'carbon tax'

Wed, Aug 4, 2010

Interesting thought about coal ash/particulate. I've heard this called the "parasol effect." And I've always wondered if there was a relationship between the removal of (alkaline) fly ash in the initial round of air pollution controls in the 70s, and the "acid rain" problem that gained a lot of attention around the same time. These systems are SO much more complex than we understand.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010

Really? A geologist who can't spell volcano? Perhaps you're just stuck in your own "mini-ice age?"

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 GilGil Odessa TX

Right on Bill! Sure there is strong evidence for anthropogenic sources of CO2 but they are only a minute fraction of the CO2 and temperature increases induced by Mother Nature herself of which we have little control. Redistribution of wealth and wasting dollars to change natural forces on the Earth and atmosphere always ends up in defeat.

Wed, Aug 4, 2010 Dale Conover Phoenix, AZ

I have to agree with Bill Bider above. The whole "Man Made" global warming argument that Al Gore and his cronies are self-promoting is unproven pseudo-science. I am a geologist and as such have an appreciation of climate change over time. One volcanic eruption can more than equal what the entire human race puts into the atmosphere. There have been both "hot and dry" periods and "mini-ice ages" over even the last thousand years of earth's history. These occur naturally over time from a whole variety of causes, most of which we do not fully understand. The last mini ice age occurred after Krakatoa's (sp) volcanoe erupted and blew ash over much of the earth. So I would conclude that to the global warmer's all we need is to re-start the golden age of coal and put enough coal ash into the atmosphere to block sunlight and cool the earth! Dale Conover, PE, PG

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above