Global Warming Survey of Appliance Mft & Big Box Dealers EXCLUSIVE
Submitted by advisor on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 3:30pm.
Global Warming Survey of Appliance Manufacturers and Big Box Dealers
The Cash for Appliance Clunkers program has several goals including supporting manufacturers and dealers, jump-starting sales by separating you from your money, and increasing the installed base of efficient appliances to reduce Green House Gas Emissions and combat Global Warming.
We are aware of Whirlpool's and GE’s positions and initiatives in Global Warming, but what of all the other industry players we wondered.
This survey hopes to find out if our industry’s main players agree that there is Global Warming, that it is primarily man caused and that reducing green house gasses is a goal.
NOTE: Keep in mind, this is not a survey of actual actions or products, only public statements and claims. Companies with high ratings talk the talk, but may not be walking the walk.
THE SURVEY
We weighed web sites, mission statements, corporate statements, presidential speeches while making direct contact when required.
The questions we asked:
A) Your company believes Global Warming is caused primarily by man’s actions?
B) Your company believes in aggressive action to reduce green house gas emissions?
SURVEY: SUMMARY
ApplianceAdvisor.com used a 1 – 10 system to summarize each company’s position based on the information found and provided.
0 = strongly disagree or no evidence of an opinion 10 = strongly agree.
If any company feels we have erroneously characterized their position, let us know.
If anyone wishes to add one of the missed industry players send us some information on the player.
A B
AHAM 10 5
ASKO 0 n/a
Broan 0 n/a
Bosch Siemens 10 10
Dacor 2 3
Electrolux 10 10
Fisher & Paykel 4 2
GE 10 10
Haier 0 n/a
LG 5 5
Miele 2 0
Samsung 10 10
Sharp 10 10
Sub-Zero 0 3
Viking 0 3
Whirlpool 10 10
Sears 0 0
Home Depot 0 3
Lowes 0 0
SURVEY: DETAILED RESULTS
AHAM
(Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers)
AHAM did respond to EPA’s proposed rules for Climate Change gas reporting, and the response did not seem like an entire copout.
http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/d/sp/i/41494/pid/41494
AHAM did respond to EPA’s proposed rules for Climate Change gas reporting, and the response did not seem like an entire copout.
http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/d/sp/i/41494/pid/41494
AHAM’s response to our query:
“AHAM supports reasonable measures to address global warming. We have a good working relationship with the U.S. EPA, congress and through the Montréal and Kyoto protocol processes on public policies related to the transition from those greenhouse gases used as refrigerants in appliances that have high global warming potential (GWP). These chemical compounds are HFC’s and were developed as substitutes for cfcs which are ozone depleting compounds. We worked in a similar cooperative relationship with government on the phase-out of cfcs.
AHAM supported climate change bill that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year because it contained a framework to phase down the use of high GWP compounds on a timetable that allows users of the compounds to transition to low GWP refrigerants. The legislation also authorizes incentives for users to make this transition.
Appliance efficiency is also very important when it comes to addressing climate change. The appliance industry has worked with major environmental and energy efficiency groups on public policy agreements to increase appliance efficiency. These agreements have resulted in appliance efficiency standards that save significant amounts of energy and water and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants which further helps combat climate change.
Use of smart appliances in concert with smart meters and time of use pricing can also reduce the need for construction of additional peak power plants, further reducing carbon dioxide emissions. There are important incentives in the house climate bill that would encourage production and sale of such appliances.
AHAM is a member of the alliance for responsible atmospheric policies (ARAP) which works with government for sound policies related to climate change. The group recognizes the science of climate change and the man made contributions to the build up of greenhouse gases. Our industry supports a similar approach by all countries. We believe climate change is an issue that should be addressed at the national and international levels.”
AA COMMENT: AHAM needs to thread the beliefs of its members, yet AHAM has fully accepted Global Warming, and claims to be making significant contributions to the battle. What does ARAP’s “responsible atmospheric policies” actually mean? Dunno.
ASKO
No mention of CO2, global warming / climate change on either domestic or international websites. The ASKO 2008 Environmental Report, which is not linked on the US site, also includes no information on CO2 or global warming.
http://www.asko.com/_download/download.cfm?file=/_download/pages/6301228_EnvironmentalReport2008.pdf
No mention of CO2, global warming / climate change on either domestic or international websites. The ASKO 2008 Environmental Report, which is not linked on the US site, also includes no information on CO2 or global warming.
http://www.asko.com/_download/download.cfm?file=/_download/pages/6301228_EnvironmentalReport2008.pdf
AA COMMENT: A driving, unifying marketing strategy of efficiency, yet not a word on climate.
BROAN
Broan’s ecoForward program mentions clean interior and exterior air, and domestic manufacturing but makes no mention of CO2 or Global Warming / Climate Change.
AA COMMENT: What is the problem with companies based in Wisconsin?
BSH
CEO Gutberlet August 2008
“Private households are already the second largest consumer of energy worldwide and the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Household appliances are responsible for approximately half of domestic electricity consumption. And the trend is strongly upward as demand in the newly industrializing countries rises.”
"Our appliances on sale across Europe, in virtually every product category, are superior to the rest of the market in terms of their energy efficiency and their impact on the climate.”
“Better and more comprehensive consumer advice and information from manufacturers, the retail trade and politicians. "Energy-saving is not a short-lived fad, but a genuinely long-term megatrend", said Dr. Gutberlet. "We are on the threshold of a major economic shift – perhaps even of a 'third industrial revolution'. We at BSH are determined to actively contribute towards making the necessary changes."
What we stand for: http://www.bsh-group.com/index.php?page=1077
“As the world’s third-largest home appliance manufacturer, BSH is well aware of the vital role it is able and indeed obliged to play in climate protection and responsible globalization. The advance of climate change is a compelling argument in favor of exploiting all the energy-saving potential at our disposal.”
“Private households are already the second largest consumer of energy worldwide and the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Household appliances are responsible for approximately half of domestic electricity consumption. And the trend is strongly upward as demand in the newly industrializing countries rises.”
"Our appliances on sale across Europe, in virtually every product category, are superior to the rest of the market in terms of their energy efficiency and their impact on the climate.”
“Better and more comprehensive consumer advice and information from manufacturers, the retail trade and politicians. "Energy-saving is not a short-lived fad, but a genuinely long-term megatrend", said Dr. Gutberlet. "We are on the threshold of a major economic shift – perhaps even of a 'third industrial revolution'. We at BSH are determined to actively contribute towards making the necessary changes."
What we stand for: http://www.bsh-group.com/index.php?page=1077
“As the world’s third-largest home appliance manufacturer, BSH is well aware of the vital role it is able and indeed obliged to play in climate protection and responsible globalization. The advance of climate change is a compelling argument in favor of exploiting all the energy-saving potential at our disposal.”
AA COMMENT: There is no question of BSH’s commitment to reducing green house gasses by personal involvement of the CEO in spreading the message. Bravo.
DACOR
In the Green August 2009: Environmental Stewardship
“This commitment includes reducing the energy demands of the company’s operations, maximizing the efficiency of products and implementing sustainable business practices, because working to reduce one’s carbon footprint to lessen the impact on the environment and improve social well-being should be the responsibility of all, not just a select few.”
AA COMMENT: Even though they were not able to respond to our queries they weren't dinged, in acknowledgment of all the good loot we’ve received over the years at KBIS. Still, they’ve done only a wee bit better than Viking and Sub-Zero, and far less than is acceptable. Dacor found the bare minimum line, and then did a little less.
ELECTROLUX
Climate Change
http://www.electrolux.com/node271.aspx
“With our biggest environmental impacts occurring during the product use phase, by far our greatest potential to reduce CO2 is to sell energy-lean products”
http://www.electrolux.com/node571.aspx
“Tackling climate change is a responsibility Electrolux takes seriously. It is an issue that also presents opportunities.……. Our target to reduce energy use is also a win-win investment: less CO2 in the atmosphere and operational savings for Electrolux.”
http://newsroom.electrolux.com/2009/07/28/electrolux-endorses-caring-for-climate/
“On behalf of Electrolux, Hans Stråberg, President and CEO, is one of 358 corporate leaders that have endorsed Caring for Climate; a UN Global Compact-orchestrated series of initiatives worldwide that demonstrate business leadership on climate change. It is intended to spark engagement among business and government alike to create an effective climate strategy. Not only does it advance practical solutions, it is intended to help shape policy as well as public attitudes.”
AA COMMENT: Electrolux is all over this, and strongly supporting the fight. But they’ve gone one step further to reducing global warming, by making sure all their factory CO2 is spilled down in Mexico way. Yahhh for us...or U.S.
FISHER & PAYKEL
The web site lists energy saving tips, but Fisher & Paykel never discusses CO2 or Global Warming. In fact, the only reference we found on any F&P document was in the 2006 Annual report. The reference reads as more of a market driven rationalization.
“With the continuing focus on global warming and the effects it has on our climate and lifestyles, our desire to manufacture ecofriendly products has become an even more
important driver for our design teams.”
AA COMMENT: Softer, lamer support, one is not likely to find. This was a surprise for us considering F&P’s efficiency strategy. We do know that U.S. President Mike Goadby personally agrees in man caused global warming….so we figure they got that going for them.
GE
http://www.ge-energy.com/corporate/ecomagination_home/ge_position_uscap.htm
“GE is participating in a major initiative urging the U.S. government to quickly enact strong legislation to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions. The formation of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), illustrates the commitment of GE and other founding U.S.-based businesses and leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to address the challenge of climate change. The other participants include: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, Lehman Brothers, PG&E, PNM Resources, Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change and World Resources Institute.”
David Slump, General Manager, Global Marketing, said, "GE supports development of market-based programs to slow, eventually stop, and ultimately reverse, the growth of greenhouse gases (GHG)."
AA COMMENT: Unlike the rest of these slugs, GE has a strategy to make money no matter what happens including building condos in caves. GE makes gas turbines and wind turbines and steam turbines and jet turbines and nuclear reactors. That all said, it’s good to see the one time largest company in the world so strongly supporting, hmm, we meant fighting warming….or some such thing
HAIER
No opinion, no position, nothing. Boring
LG
http://www.lge.com/us/about-lg/corporate-information/social-responsibility/climate-change-energy.jsp
….worldwide-we feel an equal urgency toward social responsibility and taking an active role in the push to reduce greenhouse emissions and tackle the environmental damage already incurred. Toward this end, LG Electronics is implementing various strategies to and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at our factories. We're also working to minimize the indirect greenhouse gases emitted from LG products by continuing to increase the energy-efficiency of our products.
AA COMMENT: Sure there might have been a little “confusion” in their Energy Star testing, but they do give great document. We have lowered their scores a bit based on their climate change document having no discoverable linkage to the LG site itself. It was only found via Google.
MIELE
Short reference to climate change, but no reference to CO2. They got nothing. Also did not respond to our queries.
AA COMMENT: German company without a global warming mission statement? Now we’ve seen everything.
SAMSUNG
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corpcitizenship/environmentsocialreport/environmentsocialreport_ClimateChangepolicy.html
Surprise. Samsung did their homework and came to the party with a full buffet. Very impressive.
Surprise. Samsung did their homework and came to the party with a full buffet. Very impressive.
SHARP
Well done, deep thought.
SUB-ZERO
No mention of climate change, global warming on any page or on any press release, anywhere, which is a bit vexing since refrigeration is the fount of all evil, appliance-wise.
http://www.subzero.com/livingkitchen/greenkitchen.aspx/
http://www.subzero.com/livingkitchen/greenkitchen.aspx/
In the micro-site dedicated to Sub-Zero and Wolf’s commitment to green, we found only this: “By building our appliances domestically, we drastically reduce our company’s carbon footprint.”
AA COMMENT: By far Sub-Zero’s lack of any mention of warming was our most surprising and disappointing discovery. They built this massive green crunchy site, Greenkitchens, but ducked the entire subject. Not only don’t they walk the walk, they don’t talk the talk. I guess there’s something to be said for this breath taking honesty.
Sub-Zero refused to respond to our many queries for this story, and now we may know why.
VIKING
Response to ApplianceAdvisor.com query
Response to ApplianceAdvisor.com query
“Viking does not have an official corporate position regarding global warming; however, we currently do and will continue to do many things within our production facilities and in the manufacture of our products to make as small an environmental impact as possible. We intend to develop an official policy on global warming in the near future.
Yes, we should all be working toward reducing the CO2 released into the atmosphere. At Viking we are already working toward meeting the 2014 Energy Standards and will continue to work toward reducing the energy usage for all our appliances, whether mandated by law or not.
Please note that Viking is not currently a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, nor have we been a member for many years.”
AA COMMENT: Viking has, we believe, consciously avoided any mention of CO2 or Global Warming on any document, or even on their “Commitment to the Planet” mission statement…….which we must admit is quite a trick of the public relation arts.
In the late direct response (above) Viking has NOT YET confirmed warming, but has confirmed the goal of reducing CO2 emissions. There is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions unless it’s to combat Global Warming. Viking joins Dacor and Sub-Zero in various levels of internal conflict in their answers.
WHIRLPOOL
Response to ApplianceAdvisor.com query
“ For decades, Whirlpool Corporation has played a leading role in the development of high-performance appliances that help conserve the earth's resources and allow homeowners to use resources more efficiently. We continually strive to understand and manage the environmental effects of our business, not only by creating new and innovative products that consume less energy and water, but also by improving our processes and using materials that minimize the impact on the planet.
In 2003, Whirlpool became the first appliance manufacturer to announce a global greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target. We assumed responsibility not only for direct emissions, but also for the much larger emissions associated with the use of our products. Whirlpool improving the energy-efficiency of our products by just 1 percent is the equivalent of an approximate 150 percent improvement in our manufacturing facility-related emissions. Our current target, increased in 2007, is a 6.6 percent reduction by 2012.
In addition, Whirlpool Corporation was one of 13 founding members of the Business Environment Leadership Council, an advisory group to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In 2007, we joined a small number of companies on the Respect Table – a forum for corporate leaders to address common challenges and find common solutions for a more sustainable world. Together with two European non-profit organizations, the Respect Table is organizing a project to promote a new international agreement on Climate Change in 2009, to replace the Kyoto protocol, which ends in 2012.”
Whirlpool resigned from US Chamber of Commerce, over 1 year ago, though Whirlpool did not suggest that the reason it resigned was the Chamber’s position on global warming
AA COMMENT Whirlpool has made green house gas reduction, and efficiency the centerpiece of all its work. Job 1 if you will.
SEARS
No answer to our queries, and nothing of interest in Sears documents or website.
HOME DEPOT
Not much going on. No discussion of CO2 that we can find. HD also pushed back when shareholders tried to get them to disclose efficiency measure.
LOWES
Does not claim fighting carbon as a goal other than to stay ahead of public opinion. Does publish a Carbon Disclosure Report…….but otherwise, nothing.
http://images.lowes.com/2008/misc/Carbon_Disclosure.pdf
http://images.lowes.com/2008/misc/Carbon_Disclosure.pdf
“We are working on reducing fuel consumption across the supply chain, saving energy in all of our facilities and reducing waste that goes into landfills.”
Same ol same ol
Thought I'd check back to see if you had returned to being a site about the white goods industry...nope...same ol same ol. See you in 6 months.
Now you're just being obstinate
It would be nice if the Mook'ster and Bermuda B agreed with us on warming. That would be Peachy, but really not necessary. Other than the recession in the short term, the drive for efficiency is the biggest story in our industry, and will be still in 6 months. Already changes in efficiency regulations, product design, energy testing verification, consumer behaviour and purchasing are Locked In. They're locked in.
Does it matter why they're locked in? GE and Whirlpool and others say it does, and the story you decided to comment on analyzed the official public statements answering "Why it does?" from those companies.
Sounds like a story on the white goods industry.
We miss you already so we will leave a high efficiency, low wattage LED light on for you, for when you get back.
Class act.
Class act.
Global Warming Debate
I'm surprised that there has not been a flurry of discussions on the validity of the global warming debate in light of the recent hacked emails from the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit.
All of the data that suggested or supported the contention of a castastrophic warming of the earth is in serious doubt. Researchers have stated in their emails that the data was "altered" to maintain the argument for global warming and the need to take draconian measures to stop / reverse the "trend" of warming.
The leaks emails and documents are of a magnitude akin to finding that the Roman CatholicVatican withheld evidence that the Hebrew / Latin / King James / New Testament Bibles are an elaborate hoax.
What gives?
Why the roaring silence?
Answer: Need two sides to debate
Hi John,
It is not uncommon for those with terminal illnesses to grab onto any thread of hope, whether it's laetril treatment centers in Mexico, crystals, images of Jesus on toast, potions, chicken blood, or other hogwash to pull them from the rising quicksand. Death is such a uncomprehendable drawing of the curtain, that mankind has expended a signficant portion of our species' time on earth explaining what comes next. The good news: there is no data for what comes next, so at least the death explaining industry is protected from the Chinese.
I read your complaint, but I didn't see any evidence that you understood what the issue was.
You indicated: "All of the data that suggested or supported the contention of a castastrophic warming of the earth is in serious doubt."
That both isn't true of the data from East Anglica, nor is the East Anglica data the only data set supporting man-caused climate change.
Sure scientists don't always play well with others.......which is why they become scientists to begin with.
One scientists said this about the emails:
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
The problem discussed in the emails is one of tree ring data "diverging" from the measured temperature data in the last 20 - 50 years, and that the scientists substituted actual temperature data for the last couple decades for a data set that started with tree ring derived temperature data. It could have been some sort of science crime to hide what is actually going on, but the problem with the naysayers position is that what happened was good science.
Warming weather makes trees grow more. Cold less. In the last 2- 3 decades, trees have stopped growing more even though measured temperature has risen. I had guessed that the problem was caused by global dimming, the reduction of solar energy on the Earth's surface caused by pollution and high flying jet aircraft. I was partly correct. The Christian Science Monitor has a great explanation of all the issues which cause tree ring growth to diverge from temperature.
I also like this BBC report discussing ways to improve how scientists work together.
Happy to debate when you're ready to debate.
Global Warming Debate
This was one of the better articles about the e-mail flap at the Hadley CRU:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html
I came away with the impression that the scientific review process of CO2 & global warming is far from settled but worth keeping at it.
Having said that--it seems prudent to wait until a broad consensus has been achieved within the scientific community before committing *enormous resources* into Kyoto / Copenhagen agreements that will tax an already distressed global economy.
More than a few knowledgeable climatologists are on record disputing the current scientific hypothesis of global warming / CO2 emissions / polar ice cap size / tree ring growth etc. These are not individuals that ought to be brushed off as "amateurs". I cannot get any sense of malicious intent on their part to just throw in a proverbial monkey wrench into the climate research debate. The United Nations on the other hand--I inherently distrust.
Have a great weekend.
Now we have it
That's a great story (Pop Mechanics), but somehow you came to a conclusion of doing nothing, based on an incorrect understanding of science, and against the recommendation of the author of the story you referred to.
There is not now, nor will there ever be, a "broad conscensus" on anything in science. Science leaves room for crackpots and room for genius, and that is how it should be, and why Newtonian Physics was followed by the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics.
Though there may not be conscensus, there are so few climatologists who dispute man made global warming, that whenever the naysayers start to compete on numbers of scientists they have to stack the deck from unrelated fields (surgeons, dentists, geologists, etc)
There are only a few guys of reasonable knowledge who write on the other side, and even those guys admit to having a financial stake in their opinions. (They make lots of cash from oil companies). Is it possible that you do not sense any malicious intent from these guys because they agree with your worldview? At the same time, have you hung your hat on the belief in the largest conspiracy of scientists, universities, and governments, the world has ever known?
Hold onto your hat.
Global Warming Debate
Joe Bastardi is one of the weather experts that disputes the global warming research and provides weather service predictions (long range severe weather forecasts) for the oil companies. But not all.
If reputable climatologists that offer an opposing professional opinion are---character-assassinated / belittled / stripped of their standing in their respective fields of discipline---much the same as the Nazis had done to newspaper editors during Hitler's rapid ascension to power in Germany--that's a huge red flag as far as I am concerned. (Those editors actually suffered far worst fates).
Read:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
I've Got Problems ...
... with the logical progression of the whole Global Warming issue which justifies a "Carbon Tax" ... as one panelist on the CNN discussion last night pointed out so succinctly, " ... 75% of the world is worried about surviving to next week ..." !!!
I agree !!! While I have long been an advocate of responsible co-existence with nature, fellow man, and the environment we have created, whatever course of action is charted must be cognizant of the economic impact as it relates to the long term generational interests ...
Everyone wants to attack the obvious - fuel issues, but I'll bet that every one of those participants in Copenhagen were from the 'plastic water bottle carrying' set ... plastic bottles which, if not recycled, will outlive the world in a landfill !!!
Try a different perspective
Let me try an analogy for you that will assist you in seeing what the climate folks see. You may not "buy" into the analogy, but at least you will understand what those that do, are thinking when discussing this.
If you were to read what you wrote in your comment, and change the subject from "Climate Change" to WWII say, you would be scratching a bit at the importance this issue has for climate folks, scientists, and the people in Copenhagen (other than Saudia Arabia).
Do we fight WWII during a time of economic depression? We did, and reinvented our economy in the process. Shaking up the economy, and starting from scratch is the BEST thing for an economy dedicated to creative development.
We may not have planned for the Nazi's in an earlier generation and certainly we didn't plan for this in our own, but if this is the hand that our generation has been dealt, we shouldn't whoose-out on our responsibilities.
There is NO confusion here on MY responsibilities!
The more I learn about this foolish climate change scam the clearer it becomes to me. This is an unprecedented grab for power by our Federal Government and the UN. The "consensus" is based on a strikingly few studies, some of which seem to have been manipulated and the raw data inconveniently lost. The earth has been cooling since 1998 and no one can explain it. The jerks who tell us that the sky is falling because we live in excess live in much more excess than I could ever imagine (or want to). Our politicians tell us that they can fix it if we just give them more authority, give up our freedom and allow them to regulate EVERYTHING DOWN TO THE GAS THAT COMES OUT OF MY NOSE WHEN I EXHALE! Sigh (in a few years I will be fined for that sigh). Advisor, for you to believe that scientists are uncorruptable when the vast majority of their funds come from government grants, well ha. You just keep believin buddy. But, the truth is more and more Americans are seeing this for what it is. Scientific studies manipulated to orchestrate power grab by as corrupt an organization as we have here in the US, our Federal Government, who will eventually give us over to as corrupt an organization as we have in the world, the UN. Why all the focus on CO2? Because this strikes right at the heart of a countries industry. This is designed to eventually "spread the wealth around" on a global level. My responsibility is to do everything that I can to ensure that my children enjoy the same freedom and opportunities I had. Sigh (might as well get in a few more while they are free).
Global Warming Debate
I agree--the United Nations is the principal player in this. The motivation behind the dire warnings and the demands of the protocols and summits at Montreal / Kyoto / Copenhagen are to legally force industrialized nations of the world to acknowledge the bogus science and spend ourselves back into the stone age.Those climatologists that challenge the global warming t-h-e-o-r-y are threatened by having their tenured status removed or weather reporting certificates rescinded---that ALONE tells a story! Why DESTROY the careers of those who simply dissent? Isn't dissent a necessary component of debate? If a new scientific idea is submitted for international scientific review--I was NOT aware that it would be harmful to professional careers to be active in that process.I guess I am wondereing if anyone is asking themselves---WTF ?
TV weathermen are not
TV weathermen are not climatologists. They may be highly educated, and should have some of the background to understand what is being discussed, but they would have no formal education to evaluate the overall data, or to develop a science-based data-driven opinion. They could possibly evaluate effects of climate change and the history of climate change, but they would not be qualified to discuss if global warming is man-driven or natural. Their opinion would only be a little bit better than yours or ours.
Correct ...
"Weathermen" are not climatologists, nor even meteorologists ... they are entertainers !!!
I've always said the best thing to give a Weatherman for Christmas is a WINDOW !!!
The problem with those who speak on Global Warming are neither engaging nor readily understandable by the common man ... you know, the person who refers to a room full of women as "guys" !!!
Find someone with credibility without an agenda who can put the situation in simple language and you might get less resistance ... until then you will get nothing but resistance from the majority who will pay those "carbon taxes" ...
Global Warming Debate
Not *just* weathermen. There's a growing number of people from research institutions that are publicly challenging the UN IPCC & company.What is your position on the attempt to destroy the careers of those that have a dissenting opinion? Is that acceptable behavior in scientific peer review?If *only* those specific individuals with PhDs in climatology can understand the data ( even altered data ) then what hope is there for anyone at the layman level to understand the most complex / complicated armageddon issue of the day? How can the American people (voters) decide on election day which candidate to support if the subject requires mensa-level intellect? If it weren't for the viciousness of the attacks against those that dissent---I might have kept an open mind on the subject---but ruining (or attempting to) the careers of those that offer an opposing professional opinion always smell like foul play and exhibits a dark sinister nazi-like agenda. If the climate change advocates were a private-corporation---it'd be the very worst PR disaster imaginable. Sorta like those big ole bad guys trying to keep the faulty nuclear reactor running in the movie: "The China Syndrome".
Debate Continues
95% of what happens in the modern world is magic to the general public. They could not even begin to tell you why planes don't fall from the sky, why the sun shines, how cell phones work, how a DVD's data is converted to neat movies on a TV they also couldn't even begin to explain. And yet all of these things are possible because of experts in their field that do get it. If the American voter wants to put its trust in non-experts, that's really a problem, but the American people are not qualified to have much of an opinion of their own on the science of the subject. I am not giving you my opinion on the science. I am giving my support to the scientists who have studied the subject for decades and who's opinion is that my kids and your kids are a bit screwed here.
Do I care about careers being lost here? I know nothing about the particular story you are discussing, but though it doesn't sound particularly nice, scientific organizations expel members engaged in all sorts of corrupt practices. If a meteorologist starts to read people's astrological sign based on their degree in meteorology......well, that would be a problem, and it would be within the Association of Meteorologists to chuck him from the association and restrict him or her from claiming he was a member of the organization. If a meteorologist gives a professional opinion, but cannot support it scientifically, than he or she has failed the profession. Hasn't he? I could see how an organization might do this. If a pharmacist refuses to fill certain prescriptions, or a history teacher teaches that the holocaust never happened, but cannot provide proof of this contention, these people should lose their certifications / jobs.
But again, I have no idea of the particulars of your complaint.
The foundation of your complaint with scientists is rife with internal inconsistencies. Even when it was the official position of the government that there was no global warming, climatologists who you say owe their salary to the government supported climate change. Government Scientists often find themselves disagreeing with government positions which are based more on politics than science. Agricultural policy, family planning, space exploration, fishing quotas, park restoration. If scientists were selling their opinion wholesale to protect their government support, than we should be seeing examples of this in other fields. It would be the end of science as it now exists discovered.
More Global Warming Solutions We Should Be Scared Of
I think there is a better chance that the scientists are the ones who finally end life here on earth. This sure sounds safe.........news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-global-warming.html
Is the cure worse than the disease?
The chemo sucks, but the cancer is worse.
It was widely known that smoking killed smokers decades before the Surgeon General commented on the matter in 1957. They were called "Coffin Nails" as early as 1897.
Smokers simply decided to convince themselves otherwise or refused to listen or believe, but neither ignorance nor stupidity protected them or will protect us.
I agree with you that the Chemo is going to suck.
Who is ignorant? Who is stupid?
I remember other proposed "cures for our cancer". In the 70's the extreme proposals were melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting Arctic rivers. The doomsday scenario of the day was cooling. But oh, we are so much smarter today.
If only we had a better education in science........
folks would be aware of the peer review process and that proposing a theory, even testing a theory, is only the first and second step in bringing new ideas to the light of day. 3rd step is publishing in a scientific journal. Then other scientists read this paper, laugh hysterically, and decide the author of the paper is an idiot, and set out to prove he or she is an idiot, and publish the paper confirming the fact for all to see. This confirming paper is then retested by a 3rd party and proved equally wrong. Each builds a lifelong hatred for the other, and dedicate their lives to sleeping with each other's wives while dis-proving everything the other has ever done in the hope that the other will commit suicide for a life worthlessly and pointlessly lived.
This whirling white water of scientific revenge is the currency better than salary which drives 20 hour days, and squeezes out stupid and ignorant ideas before they reach the light of day......though not always.
I was not aware that the global cooling you refer to had been confirmd by peer review or by conscensus of the IPCC, or had even reached the stage where wives were getting bedded willy nilly. There are alot of stupid ideas.......cause that's science. You have to keep your eye on the ones that survive the torpedos.
If only we had the raw data.......
Certainly the revelations coming from East Anglia's Climate Research Unit reveal a disinterested search for the truth. The destruction of raw data and the coordinated attempts to prevent critics of the hysteria from being published show that without a doubt. But this is nothing new to this bunch of "politicized scientists". NOAA has a well known reputation for their questionable accounting practices. So much so that researches created surfacestations.org, a grassroots effort to database all surface temperature monitoring stations in the US. You can go to their website and see some of these units placed near asphalt, air conditioning units etc. The National Science Foundation is also notorious for not allowing access to information on the various climate change studies it funds. NASA Goddard has had to correct temperature records several times in the past when they made their studies available to independent researchers. They are now known for stonewalling. If you saw the same questionable accounting practices in any publicly held company you would be calling for investigations at minimum.
A Convenient Delusion
The column (linked below) takes the opposite strategy. It tries to answer the question of what needs to be true for Global Warming to be a pile of $%#.
Not a perfect story since the logic is not fully explored, and lots of low hanging fruit remains in the tree, but a pretty good one.
A Convenient Delusion
Ouch! Not so much of a delusion!
Even new bombshells today as Professor Phil Jones, the man at the center of the Climate Gate debacle admits that for the past 15 years there has been no statistical warming. Huh? The are the same brilliant minds who said the science was settled. But wait, there is more. The good Professor also deceits oh, I'm sorry the word is conceited.......wait, one more time.......conceded.... the possibility that the world was at times in fact warmer than it is now, suggesting that global warming just may not be a man made phenomenon. This laboratory was instrumental in providing the data for the famous Hockey Stick graph of doom and the UN's IPCC full court press on governments (of rich countries) to cut carbon emissions. A truly amazing story.......www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
The delusion continues
You are referencing a news article from a conservative daily which references an interview by the BBC based on questions, many from deniers, to Professor Phil Jones. I would ask if you had read the original interview?
BBC Interview
Based on the interview, your refenced story makes the following claims:
1) The professor indicates that the data is not his to "disappear", he just collects it from other sources, and that there are 3 seperate data sets around the world, he being responsible for only one of them. No one in the story, yours or the BBC claimed that the data was missing.
2) If you read the story, he did not say that there has been no global warming since 1995. This is where I ask that statistics really be included in the elementary school curriculum. He is saying that the period 1995 to 2006 period is too short to reach a statistical conclusion. One needs either a longer period for the data to be "significant", that is greater than the margin of error. A snow storm in DC is not "significant". This part of the article makes me question the English education system. The professor actually said: The 1995 - 2006 data shows warming at the rate of 0.12C per decade, but it is not "significant". Which means that the 11 year period is not long enough to rise above the background noise.
3) The 3rd point based on a hypothetical question to the professor. The answer he gave was that warming periods have happened before, but there is no data indicating that it was as warm as seen today or that it was global, or what the cause of the warming was. This point is smoke and mirrors. No one argued that there were no earlier periods of rising temperatures.
Just to take a moment to refute your earlier Rant.
You complained that the IPCC report said that 50% of Holland would be under water. Yes that was incorrect. The Dutch complained that it was really 25% underwater from ocean flooding caused by warming and 29% caused by river flooding driven by climate change........for a total of 54%. The Dutch are such sticklers.
The Russian data article. Honestly, I couldn't figure out the what they were talking about. Standing back from the immediate complaint it's wise to discount any comment that comes directly from Saudia Arabia, Exxon, or Russia which has not been confirmed by a disinterested 3rd party. Russia wouldn't exist without oil. I'm just saying.
You mentioned the Himalayas and North Africa. So far haven't tracked those stories down yet.
Just how reliable??? Like eggs??
And now we have Professor John Christy, Professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama in Huntsville. A former lead author on the IPCC. He claims the data is unreliable. That the weather stations used have been comprimised by factors of urbanization, building airports around them, placing them next to air conditioning units, waste incinerators and the like. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece I am familiar of the work of Anthony Watts. He is leading a grass roots effort to inspect and data base these US temperature monitoring stations, showing pictures of these units placed on or near asphalt, near air conditioning units and so on.climateaudit.org/ and www.surfacestations.org/. I am quite content to let science fight this one out if the politicians will stop enacting policies, cap and trade, "greenhouse" gas taxes and so on and so on that repress all Americans, place our country at a major disadvantage and "share the wealth" on a global scale. Bob, you are right, this is a religion! This is the most expensive theroy in human history and the picture becomes less clear every day. Remember what science said about eggs? First they were good for you, then bad for you. Then good for you. Then bad for you. Then good for you. Then bad for you.
OK, Time to State Your Position !!!
Before this particular thread get to the 1" wide point, how about we state our individual stands ???
Are you "Warmer" or are you NOT ???
OR
Do you really care ???
It's real
I believe that Global Warming is real. I don't know if man has an impact or not, but it is real. And as for those who harp on the DC storm as "proof" in favor of denial, please shitf your focus Northward to Vancouver and the Olympics. The temperature reached 50 degrees yesterday and they're begging for snow. Remember now, these are the WINTER games. If we're using one event to make an argument, then this one is as good as any...
No, Not Just One Event ...
Hi Dram !!!
I'm not using DC as one event ... and I believe that I've heard commentators comment that the weather in Vancouver is traditionally fickle ...
As I mentioned I've lived in the same place here in "Joisey" for 17 years and recall distinctly that we have heavy snow years every 2-3-4 years ... I think 17 years is a reasonable "audit sample" and means this snow is nothing more than a cyclical event year ...
It's been a bad six weeks
Sorry to rehash old stuff. I know this Global Warming stuff is so December 2009, but it's cold. Record lows everywhere. Record snowfalls. More snow on the way. The Washington DC Blizzard forced the Obama Administration to rearrange the announcement of a new Global Warming office. Maybe this might make me feel a little better. Anyway, it has been a pretty bad six weeks for the global warming movement. In case you missed it:
There, I feel a little better. Maybe I'll go outside and burn some tires. Stay warm all!
ad nauseum
Regrettably this debate over climate change will probably continue long after Tommy Bahama opens an outlet store in Iceland.
Excellent Vision !!!
That will also mean that their economy is viable once again ... this time competing with the Cari-bino !!!
Why Oh Why ...
... can't anyone believe in cycles ??? We go thru bitter cold and snow like crazy cycles and no so cold and no-snow winter cycles ... since I was a kid it's been that way ... except for an occasional snow on Easter, which we call an anomaly, which if we didn't have them we wouldn't have a reason for the word !!!
... and Liberals have always been, and always will be, condescending because they, deep down, know that they are full of baloney (for lack of a better, more succinct colloquialism) just like a person LEARNS to be evil, no one is born liberal, they are TAUGHT to be liberal as a guise for being "free thinking" which is oxymoronic ... people are born conservative because it is human natural to "conserve" what they know works best and is reliable, as opposed to a deviation which might fail and/or prove to be foolish ...
Billy Joel sang " ... the good ole days weren't always good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems ..." contradiction in terms ... anyone who has waxed poetic over their childhood, adolescent years, or any other "good times" knows what he meant ...
The philosophy lesion for today is now adjourned ... class dismissed ... thank you for coming !!!
No You Dih' int !!!
Bob,
Are you saying that conservatives would naturally still be in caves if not for liberals exploring outside the cave, trying new stuff, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding and learning from the failures and building upon the success? 'Cause that's what it sounds like.
I believe that your definition of conservatism is in error. Conservatism is a belief in the tried and true, a belief in what has been done in the past, with a negative reaction to change (in general). It could be what works best, but not necessarily, and in a world undergoing constant technological change, constant demographic change, constant hmmmmm climate change.......what is that expression...the only constant is "change"......conservatism, as defined, is designed for failure in a world of change, but works very nicely if your plan is to remain in caves.
Now talk amongst yourselves.....whilst I fish around for my helmet and chin strap, for the load %$&%%$ soon to fall on my head.
Aw, Common Now ...
Nay and forsooth ... I was attempting to explain the differentiation between the two (2) prevailing ways people identify themselves, while demonstrating that it is naturally conservative to retreat into what one knows as an absolute ... but ... without the teaching of liberal thought, we, as a society, would have never achieved any of that which previously thought of as unthinkable or impossible ...
Without that mindset, we'd never be in space, never cured disease, never invented anything, nor ever eaten a crab or a lobster ...
It is when that "liberalism" goes to the extreme, just like extreme "conservatism" (AKA zealotry) that society sometimes goes wrong ...
One can think of the many examples in history ... for instance, the Russian Revolution was a rather good idea, until it became a means for the Marxist-Leninists ...
I personally believe that when a cause becomes the center of your existence, then you risk becoming so focused on that cause that you are lost to all else ... we all probably have met some people who are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good ... similarly, to become as outrageously focused on Global Warming to the exclusion of the needs of our way of life renders one of no use to mankind ...
I like to give the example of the Spotted Owl, who was an endangered species back in the 70's ... 2x4's which formerly cost 50 cents went to $2 all because they declared the Spotted Owl's forests in the northwest as untouchable !!! I had a better place for the Spotted Owl ... it's called the Smithsonian ... to give an animal precedence over man is wrong because it gives an animal domain over man ... and for those of you of faith, it is unscriptural !!!
Please don't shoot the messenger ... I'm merely expressing philosophical views which are not necessarily PC ... Is that so wrong ??? I'm not upsetting your apple-cart unless you let me, and to be honest, I'm not really interested in doing so unless you're going to do harm to yourself or someone else ...
Thanks for listening ...
Condescending liberals the cause of Global Warming
Thank God for the liberals. Or we'd all be in caves. Ahhh, the cycle of life. Now the liberals who saved us from the caves want us to move back into the caves to save the planet. You know, if you just listened to the conservatives we certainly would not be on the brink of annihilation by an angry planet for the pollution that we spew into the atmosphere. We would still be living in caves.
How Did You Get There ...
...from what I said ???
I took your post as two (2) separate comments, so I did the same in response ... I made no correlation between liberals and Global Warming ... both liberals and conservatives alike are responsible for the pollution you so correctly address, but how you took my comments to the conclusion you came to is a mystery to me ...
correction
I believe the Mookster is replying to my comment, not yours. Your new reply was above his older reply.
OKIE DOKIE
Sorry ... I guess I got confused, I think !!!
I thought it was still a kinda good response anyway ... it was certainly heartfelt ...
Reality must take precedence over public relations
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html Here is a good story that describes a theory from a research team out of Germany. These folks have developed new technology to measure deep ocean temperatures. In 2008 his team of scientists predicted the cooling trend we now find ourselves in. They predict that this trend will continue for 20 - 30 years. His team also attributes most of the recent warming trend to natural cycles called Atlantic and Pacific Multi Decadal Oscillations. A couple interesting claims in the article.
It is proveable that our climate cycles and changes on its own because the earth wobbles and sun activity varies. We have overwhelming proof that our earth has experienced both higher and lower temperatures that we have over the last century, long before man could have been a factor. Political "solutions" to the "problem" should be minimum and we should wait at least 20 years to enact any part of them.
Chill out Mook
Relax Mook. Nobody is conspiring to take away your freedoms. Fact ...Climate changes happen. Fact ...some changes aren't especially good for us. Fact...man's impact on the environment has had some impact on the climate. (You don't have to believe that we're solely responsible for climate changes but surely you could agree that we've had some impact). If you could accept these simple truths you might agree that we could begin to try and take some steps towards reducing or reversing the negative impact we've had. The appliance industry is taking steps to reduce energy consumption, reduce water consumption, etc. Isn't that a good thing? Are there other steps that could be taken that wouldn't give you the jitters, or do we have to wait 20 years to do anything?
For the record
Cohiba, for the record....yes, I believe in climate change. That is the only thing constant about the climate is change. Yes, I think that man might be responsible for some part of that change, seeing as how we are part of the environment. I believe that natural changes are also playing a part. I believe that natural changes probably own the majority share here. I believe that we do not fully understand the climate yet and we should be very careful until we do. I believe that conservation is good. My family and I practice this principle and try to make educated choices on how we use our resources. I believe that more efficiency in the appliance industry is good. Individuals and manufactures should continue to push each other and challenge each other to build products that are both as efficient and affordable as possible. But if you don't think that we are loosing freedoms in all of this, well you are either very gullible or not paying attention.
For the record - 2
Way to go Mook. Your "for the record" comments were very well written. From some of your previous postings I was concerned that perhaps you believed that man had not played any role (at all) in climate change, which I thought was a pretty naive position. Glad you cleared that up. As far as my gullability or inattention is concerned, I guess I'll plead guilty to inattention. I quit believing in black helicopters and boogeymen a long time ago and rarely pay much attention to arguments that there is a conspiracy to strip our freedoms and shackle us all under the thumb of a "one-world U.N. Big Brother". Conspiracy theories might make good movie plots but otherwise I find them kind of boring.
Yawn
Wow, nice one advisor, another progressive hack whining that Americans are becoming more skeptical on global warming. Perhaps the tears in his eyes kept him from any of these 338 (some may say a $%#load) reasons Americans might be questioning the soundness of the science. www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html
Global Warming Debate
If you know nothing of the story (ruined reputations or careers): Read the following---I say this not out of malice but to drive home a point. Stop listening the "Happy Talk Drivel" about saving the earth from man to save mankind. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528If you have read the link and post that you see nothing untoward--that is NOT what I expected from a gentleman like you and effectively ends my interest / participation on your forum.
Even More Warming
Doesn't seem to make sense to rely on Climate Change denyer (Inhof) to understand the point being made by Heidi Cullen, so I tracked down her actual statement. Here it is.
She says on the Weather Channel website, that the American Meteorogical Society has an official opinion that warming is due to man's influence. The society gives a Seal of Approval to meteorologists. I have no idea if this is a certification, or a test, or simply a requirement to pay dues and have a degree. If the seal indicates that a meteorologist meets the professional requirements of the society, and this member refuses to live up to those professional requirements, then I'm having a hard time having a problem with ejecting this member. Those requirements could restrict meteorologists from giving professional opinions in areas they know nothing about, or using unaproved forecasting models, or wearing plaid on TV. No idea, and didn't look.
The AMS has concluded that man-driven climate change is "fact", and not a subject of debate. You are suggesting that ejection will destroy a meteorologist's career. I have no idea, but could be the cost of breaking the rules of a professional association, as it is when you get dis-barred in the legal profession.
Your basic complaint is that all of this is stiffling debate. Most scientists have concluded that there is no debate. Is it more heat or it is it less heat, what's the timing, what are the effects going to be on this city or that species, these are still getting nailed down.
Is there warming, and is it mostly man-driven? This is a debate ONLY on the political right and ONLY in this country............... as if this were a political discussion!
Still Warming
I agree AA !
The earth is showing the effects of climate change. That is not the opinion of a weatherman or a U.N. boogie man. NASA has been tracking the size of the artic ice cap since 1979. Beginning in 2000 there has been a series record breaking low low levels in the minimum summer size of the cap. Records were set in September 2002 and then broken in 2005 and again in 2007. By September '07 the ice cap measured 4.13 million kilometers, down from the previous record low of 5.32 million kilometers in Sept '05.
Added to this is the fact that the Hunt Ice Shelf which has been around for he past three thousand years began cracking in 2000 and by 2002 had split and began breaking into pieces.
Whether or not you believe man caused this climate change is subject to debate. I just don't understand how anyone could not believe that man's emission of greenhouse gasses contributed (at least) How could it not ?
Actually, I didn't plan to write this much on this overdone debate, but I wanted to see if I could add paragraph breaks the way Bermuda Bob does in his postings). We'll see ....
The Melting Ice Caps - 128 years worth of crap
Thanks to Tim Blair's post in the UK's Daily Telegraph. His post contains links to the original news story from its day.
blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/
From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:
• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting - a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”
I know we have had a few periods where we we all going to freeze in an ice age too. That was particularly all the rage in the 1970's because despite all these alarmist headlines the earth cooled from 1945 - 1977. No one can explain why the earth's temperature has not risen since 1998. If these jerks were right, why are we not under water by now?
Split your P's
Hey Mook. You need to get paragraph lessions from Bob too. Either that or shorten your postings. Actually, your subject title pretty much said it all.
P Splitting
Cohiba,
Wish I could help you in your passage to paragraphical nirvana. As the paragraph master, I have powerful tools for indentation and formatting. Tools too powerful for those who have yet to attain inner peace and outer flow. Know that though your footprints are made in fresh snow, you follow a path of thousands, with thousands yet to come. Moral: be careful where you put your P.
Till then I have fixed Mook's comment. Should have done it yesterday.
P Splitting
Master Bob ... I bow to your formatting wizardry.
I will continue to try splitting p's in every way imaginable. However, I'm beginning to believe that Advisor may have shared with you a secret that has remained hidden from the rest of us.
Do you have pictures? Did you save his life in Vietnam? Could it be that Advisor has some sort of split personality disorder and you are actually him writing these postings under an imagined pen name? Is there a Bob? Has he ever been to Bermuda?
Thanks for fixing Mook's comment, but truthfully I still have trouble getting past the title.