Re: [asa] climate change severity

Since Janice seems so enamored by Tom Harris, this may be a good time
to provide some insight into Tom Harris' 'scientific facts' from our
friend Tim Lambert at Deltoid
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/the_gods_are_laughing_at_tom_h.php

Excerpt

If you are going to claim that Gore makes numerous basic science
mistakes, it's not a good idea to make numerous basic science mistakes
in just one paragraph. Harris writes:

Harris: Similarly, the fact that water vapour constitutes 95% of
greenhouse gases by volume is conveniently ignored by Gore. While
humanity's three billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or GT) per year net
contribution to the atmosphere's CO2 load appears large on a human
scale, it is actually less than half of 1% of the atmosphere's total
CO2 content (750-830 GT). The CO2 emissions of our civilization are
also dwarfed by the 210 GT/year emissions of the gas from Earth's
oceans and land. Perhaps even more significant is the fact that the
uncertainty in the measurement of atmospheric CO2 content is 80 GT --
making three GT seem hardly worth mentioning.

Let's count how many basic scientific mistakes and omissions Harris makes.

   1. The CO2 percentage of greenhouse gases by volume is irrelevant.
What is important is the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect.
   2. Humanity is increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by
3.8 billion tonnes per year. That is not the same as increasing the
CO2 content by 3.8 billion tonnes, since it just counts the carbon in
each C02 molecule.
   3. Atmospheric carbon as of the mid 90s was 775 GT. There is no
uncertainty of 80 GT, since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
can be measured quite accurately.
   4. The natural emissions of CO2 are more than balanced by natural
absorption of CO2, so nature is, on net, absorbing CO2. Human
emissions are significantly more than 3.8 GT. Fortunately natural
sinks are absorbing some of the CO2 we produce so the net increase is
only 3.8 GT. It is wrong to compare total natural emissions with the
net change from human emissions.
   5. Nowhere does Harris mention that human emissions of CO2 have
increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30%.

More on the NRSP:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/now_really_secret_payments.php

Now Really Secret Payments

Kevin Grandia writes:

Kevin: Canada's latest and greatest climate change denial group,
the Natural Resource Stewardship Project, has come up with a laughable
reason for hiding it's funding sources. According to a recent CanWest
News Service article, the NRSP's executive director, Tom Harris,
states that "a confidentiality agreement doesn't allow him to say
whether energy companies are funding his group."

But if energy companies are not funding his group, what sort of
confidentiality agreement would stop him from saying so?

In other Tom Harris news, he's been editing the Wikipedia page on the
Natural Resource Stewardship Project in an attempt to remove the fact
that as well as heading the NRSP he works for the High Park Group a PR
company that lobbies for energy companies.

We Christians should be careful in quoting so-called experts, as
Augustine's warnings apply equally strongly to us citing our own
ignorance or that of others.

On 1/5/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> And finally check out this report
> http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
>
> Like the tobacco industry, ExxonMobil has:
> • Manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most
> indisputable scientific evidence.
> • Adopted a strategy of information laundering by using seemingly
> independent front organizations to publicly further its desired
> message and thereby confuse the public.
> • Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent peer-reviewed
> scientific findings or cherry-pick facts in their attempts to persuade
> the media and the public that there is still serious debate among
> scientists that burning fossil fuels has contributed to global warming
> and that human-caused warming will have serious consequences.
> • Attempted to shift the focus away from meaningful action on global
> warming with misleading charges about the need for "sound science."
>
> I am amazed to see also quite an overlap between Big Oil and the
> Intelligent Design movement approach. Especially the cherry picking of
> facts and the need for 'sound science'...
>
>
>
> On 1/5/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > May I also ask why you are quoting extensively from Tom Harris?
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 5 12:43:12 2007