Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The Climate Debate Is [Not] Over


Asian countries seem to have a slightly different perspective about the climate and related issues.

  • Russian scientists believe a new ice age is coming. So I guess it makes sense to be stingy with the oil and natural gas.
  • The Chinese don't mind CO2 limits as long as they apply to Europe and North America
  • And now the Japanese are backing out of their support of the IPCC proclamation regarding man-made global warming.
From Marc Morano. Excuse the formatting, but text from emails and naked links are a bit ugly.

Japan’s top scientists are publicly dissenting!

Actual Debate! Top Japanese Scientists Dissent on Warming – Reject IPCC View - Call Climate Change 'Natural'

[Note: Both Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists” and UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh are featured in the U.S. Senate report. Itoh has said: Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Award-winning Geologist Shigenori Maruyama, professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, has not yet been included in the U.S. Senate report, but is yet another prominent Japanese scientist dissenting from warming fears. Shigenori Maruyama can be reached at: Maruyama has authored more than 125 scientific publications. bio page: - Prof. Maruyama was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology. ]

Energy think tank publishes new report on causes of global warming – January 12, 2008

Excerpt: Who is the real culprit behind global warming? The Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) pits differing views from five researchers -- some who attribute the greenhouse effect to CO2 emitted by human activity and others who express skepticism towards the claim -- against each other in the latest issue of its journal.

The study titled, "Global warming: What is the scientific truth?" contained work by Seita Emori, head of the National Institute for Environmental Studies who participated in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as Shunichi Akasofu, professor emeritus at the University of Alaska, Kiminori Ito, professor at Yokohama National University, and Shigenori Maruyama, professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, three researchers skeptical of the man-made climate theory, and Kanya Kusano, program director at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) who takes a neutral stance towards the issue. All five researchers agreed either completely or partially with the claim by the IPCC that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level."

However, all but Emori disagreed with the IPCC assertion that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations" -- in other words, that global warming is the result of human activity. "CO2 emissions have been increasing, but the rise in air temperature stopped around 2001. Climate change is due in large part to naturally occurring oscillations," argues Akasofu. Ito pointed out problems in the figures themselves.

"Data taken by the U.S. is inadequate. We only have satellite data of global temperatures from 1979 onwards." While symposiums on the topic have been held on numerous occasions, the journal's editorial committee cites the "limitations of the spoken word" as a motivation for publishing the feature. The feature includes the data on which the five researchers base their arguments, and is posted for public viewing on the Internet.

Note: Direct Link to translated presentation of skeptical UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh:
Below are the two full entries of both UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh and Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu in the U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims:

Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center who has twice been named in "1000 Most Cited Scientists," released a scientific study of the Arctic on March 2007
that concluded the recent warming was likely "natural" and not manmade. (LINK)

Akasofu, an award winning scientist who has published more than 550 professional journal articles and authored or co-authored 10 books, also recently blasted the UN IPCC process. "I think the initial motivation by the IPCC (established in 1988) was good; it was an attempt to promote this particular scientific field," Akasofu said in an April 1, 2007 interview. "But so many [scientists] jumped in, and the media is looking for a disaster story, and the whole thing got out of control," Akasofu added.

The article continued: "Akasofu said there is no data showing that ‘most' of the present warming is due to the man-made greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in February. "If you look back far enough, we have a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present," Akasofu said. The article concluded: "Akasofu said scientists who support the man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been available in the satellite era only since the 1960s and 1970s. ‘Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975,' he said. ‘All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That's what I call 'instant climatology.' I'm trying to tell young scientists, 'You can't study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.'" (LINK)

UN IPCC award-winning environmental physical chemist Dr. Kiminori Itoh of Yokohama National University, a contributor to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer, publicly rejected man-made climate fears in 2008, calling the promotion of such fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.” Itoh, who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy, is a former lecturer at the University of Tokyo and the author of the just released his new book Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs (currently in Japanese only).

“We have described many topics in this book, including inaccurate temperature measurements (e.g., A. Watt’s work), ‘observations’ of climate sensitivity, many climate forcings such as colored-aerosol and vegetation (based on 2005 NRC report as Roger has so many times pointed out), and the effect of solar magnetic activity (including my own work),” Itoh wrote on June 17, 2008, on the weblog of former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. Itoh’s new book includes chapters calling man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.” “I also cited the opinions of Dr. Akasofu (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) in the last part of the book. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists,’ and says, ‘IPCC should make appropriate comments before G8.’ I sincerely think he is correct,” Itoh wrote. Itoh concludes his book with six points:
“1. The global temperature will not increase rapidly if at all. There is sufficient time to think about future energy and social systems.
2.The climate system is more robust than conventionally claimed. For instance, the Gulf Stream will not stop due to fresh water inflow.
3. There are many factors that cause the climate changes, particularly in regional and local scales. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.
4. A comprehensive climate convention is necessary. The framework-protocol formulism is too old to apply to modern international issues.
5. Reconsider countermeasures for the climate changes. For instance, to reduce Asian Brown Cloud through financial and technical aid of developed countries is beneficial from many aspects, and can become a Win-Win policy.
6. The policy makers should be ‘Four-ball jugglers.’ Multiple viewpoints are inevitable to realize sustainable societies.” (LINK)

Also included in U.S. Senate 650 Scientist Report:
Japanese Scientist Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan and former vice deputy president at the Shibaura Institute of Technology, dissented in 2008.

“Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth. For millions of years, solar activity has been controlling temperatures on Earth and even now, the sun controls how high the mercury goes. CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Soon it will cool down anyhow, once again, regardless of what we do. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. What makes a whole lot of economic and political sense is to blame global warming on humans and create laws that keep the status quo and prevent up-and-coming nations from developing. Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot,” Takeda said, according to a July 22, 2008 article. (LINK)


Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates


SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
[Image from:]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)