Best Summary of Why It's Premature to Try to Cool the Earth

This is Senator Inhofe's (Minority Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee) statement at today’s hearing on the current status of the science on climate change.

I believe this testimony and its associated links is the best aggregation of data suggesting that that it is very premature of the world to decide that it needs to jump on Al Gore's bandwagon and make massive efforts to attempt to lower the earth's temperature.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies, analyses and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute many conclusions of the IPCC. I have documented in the past how the consensus on the “science is settled” debate has been challenged, and in many cases, completely refuted, from the hockey stick, to the Stern Review, to the IPCC backtracking on conclusive physical links between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity. Just this past week, a major new study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics that finds worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response' to oceans, and not carbon dioxide. There have also been recent challenges by Russian scientists to the very idea that carbon dioxide is driving Earth’s temperature and a report from India challenging the so-called “consensus.” The Physics and Society Forum, a unit within the American Physical Society, published a new paper refuting the IPCC conclusions where the editor conceded there is a ‘considerable presence' of global warming skeptics within the scientific community. More and more prominent scientists continue to speak out and dissent from man made global warming. In June, the Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, declared himself a “skeptic” and said “global warming has become a new religion.” Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology also dissented in 2008. “As a scientist I remain skeptical” of climate fears, Dr. Simpson said in February of this year. In June, a top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, turned on the IPCC and called man-made global warming fears the “worst scientific scandal in the history.” In addition, more evidence of challenges to global warming occurred when two top hurricane scientists announced they were reconsidering their views on global warming and hurricanes. As the normal scientific process continues to evolve and models continue to improve, there have many more instances documented that are positive developments, which should be embraced, rather than ridiculed or immediately attacked by the media or policymakers. It is my hope that as more and more of these researchers speak out, scientific objectivity and integrity can be restored to the field of global warming research.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4b486f26-802a-23ad-4b32-f7ef47ce6468

Here is an excerpt from Senate testimony today by former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville

"On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject. […] Regarding the currently popular theory that mankind is responsible for global warming, I am very pleased to deliver good news from the front lines of climate change research. Our latest research results, which I am about to describe, could have an enormous impact on policy decisions regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. […] If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end -- if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now. […] Based upon global oceanic climate variations measured by a variety of NASA and NOAA satellites during the period 2000 through 2005 we have found a signature of climate sensitivity so low that it would reduce future global warming projections to below 1 deg. C by the year 2100. […] Obviously, what I am claiming today is of great importance to the global warming debate and related policy decisions, and it will surely be controversial. These results are not totally unprecedented, though, as other recently published research6 has also led to the conclusion that the real climate system does not exhibit net positive feedback. […] I hope that the Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated -- not attacked and maligned. And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. This Committee could, at a minimum, make a statement that encourages that goal."

Where the Jobs Are

Fans of squooshy or artsy careers, alas the news isn't good. Here's Vickie Elmer's report in the Washington Post on where the jobs are:

If you're seeing the storm clouds of the economy
darken, you might want to grab a career more likely
to withstand a recession. Go into
sales, software development or design if you want
something safe, suggests Jobfox, a McLean, Va.
career website. Its new list of the most
recession-proof professions also includes nurses
accounting staff, business analysts and network
administrators. Financial executives and
administrative assistants also are prime positions,
according to Jobfox. CareerBuilder, run by a group
of newspaper companies and Microsoft, has a similar
list. Engineering, health-care jobs such as
physical therapists, medical assistants, radiology
technicians as well as nurses and information
technology positions including systems analysis and
web development are among the best. State and local
government jobs also could be safe bets.
CareerBuilder reports are based on its own research
and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

African-American Racism, an Underdiscussed Issue

The career counseling client who just left my office is a social worker who works for a government agency in a major city. She is half white and half Latina.

Tearfully, she claimed that she has, for years, been the persistent victim of racism by her Black clients, co-workers, and boss. She said that her black clients frequently call her racist when she, for example, informs them that she needs to make a home visit or denies their claim for benefits. She told of her Black boss letting the Black workers routinely take two-hour lunches and giving them fewer and easier cases to work on. She has complained to her boss and to human resources to no avail.

That reminds me of a number of white, Asian, or Latino clients who, over the years, claimed persistent, blatant racism from African-Americans, and felt miserable and/or felt forced to quit their jobs as a result. In contrast, while a small percentage of my African-American clients have mentioned that they perceive subtle racism in their workplace, not one has ever claimed such severe racism. Of course, it is possible they didn't mention it to me because they're uncomfortable making such an accusation to me, a white person.

The above provides merely skimpy anecdotal evidence that Black racism toward others is more prevalent and severe than others' racism toward Blacks. To obtain more solid evidence, I submitted to 10 publishers a book proposal on the topic of race in the workplace, in which I proposed to place ads in major newspapers and websites inviting readers of all races to email me their stories about race in the workplace. My book would tell their stories and conclude with summary findings and recommendations. In response, I received just one call of interest: from a Harper Collins acquisitions editor, an African-American woman. Her first question: "What's going to be the conclusion of your book?" I said, "I don't know. It depends on what I learn from doing the research for the book." She said, "You know that's a deal killer." I said, "I can't help it. I'm not going to promise the book's conclusion before I do the research." She said, "Oh well." And that was that.

I believe it would be of great value to society if someone attempted to write an even-handed, fully honest book on race in the workplace, based on fair-minded, quality research.

In any event, perhaps you'd like to post a comment here describing the extent to which you believe racism of whatever type(s) exist in your workplace.

A possibly relevant data point: A 2004 Pew Charitable Trust study found that only 65% of registered Black voters registered Democrat, yet according to the latest CNN/Time poll, among Black voters, Obama leads McCain 95% to 4%. While some of the non-Democrats might favor Obama for non-racial reasons, those statistics suggest that significant numbers of Blacks let their desire to vote for a Black trump their political beliefs.

Why Women Don't Get Ahead in Science Careers

A blog post on Sciencecareers.org, a project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS,) recently reported a study that found that "many women participate more actively at the beginning of their scientific career, with their work ambitions reduced after having children."

Why does the media relentlessly report claims of a glass ceiling yet rarely report research findings such as that?

Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?

I received this email from a stranger named Michael Chramko: mchramko@softcom.net.

Recently a 98 year old lady named Irena died.

During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a sewer specialist.

She had an ulterior motive...

As a German Christian, she heard the Nazis' plans for the Jews.

Irena smuggled infants out in the back of her truck.

She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let Irina in and out of the ghetto.

The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog, and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

During her time and course of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants.

She was caught and the Nazis broke both her legs, and arms, and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out, and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard.

After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it, and reunited the family. Most of course had been gassed.

The kids she helped got placed into foster family homes, or adopted.

Last year Irena was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize....

She LOST.

Al Gore won, for a slide show on global warming.

I've argued in previous posts, that Gore's movie and speeches assert as certainties, statements that are the subject of significant doubt among climate scientists. Here are links:

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/06/elite-scientists-dissent-from-climate.html

http://martynemko.blogspot.com/2008/06/climate-change-consensus-is-softening.html

http://www.martynemko.com/articles/10-questions-for-those-concerned-about-climate-change_id1551

Meanwhile, at Gore's impetus, the world is expending enormous sums and is planning equally large restrictions of people's freedoms (to drive, set their thermostats at comfortable temperatures, etc.). Before such massive impositions on humankind, we deserve better evidence.

I invite you to check this woman's bio out, and then ask yourself whether she or Al Gore was more worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize:
http://www.irenasendler.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler

The Danger of Decisionmaking by Consensus

In recent decades, we've moved from decisionmaking by top-level individuals to decisionmaking by consensus. This usually results in lowest-common-denominator decisions: something that everyone can agree to. Bold ideas rarely survive a committee.

Also, consensus-based decisionmaking tends to squelch brilliant dissenters. It takes rare courage to insist that the majority is wrong. It could damage your career. Yet, if it weren't for brilliant dissenters, we'd likely still believe the world was flat and that incantations were the best cure for disease.

Alas, dissenters are as marginalized today as they were in medieval times. For example, we dismiss as "deniers" people who urge agnosticism on the Al Gore climate change scenario. We dub as "cynical" or even "racist," people who believe that education--even with continued increases in spending--won't significantly reduce the racial achievement gap.

All of us are shackled by conventional thinking's chains. When we hear a new idea from someone who strikes you as intelligent, it is important that we pull on ropes of restraint and give that idea a fair hearing.

White People Love to Be Offended

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/