Governor Brown: Climate Change Skeptics are Greatest Danger to California

Russ Steele

I was listening to the live broadcast from Governor Brown’s Extreme Climate Risk  Conference this morning.

The Conference opened with the NBC Show – Path of Destruction which claimed that 12 major weather vents were caused by climate change.

There was some opening remarks by Governor Brown. He started out his little chat with the assertion that climate change from CO2 emissions is real because 97% of Climate Scientist who publish peer review papers say it is true, leaving only 3% who are skeptics, and these skeptics are the greatest danger to California.

Here is the problem, Gov Brown’s 97% comes from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois working under Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results were disappointed the researchers with only a few hundred responding— in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that the governor is touting.

So, Gov Brown relies on a flawed graduate student study for his 97% when there are over a 1,000 scientists who have refuted the UN IPCC’s global warming claims. According a report by the US Senate HERE:

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists  from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming ―consensus‖ — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in December 2010.
I will match the US Senates 1,000 against the 77 of a U of I Graduate Student any day. But, then again this conference is not about the truth, it is about the modification of how we live and work in California.

Governor Brown goes on to blame the CATO Institute for promoting a Climate Skeptic’s Cult, a cult funded by billions of dollars that it taking us over the cliff. He went on to make claims that Sierra snow melt is coming earlier each year, sea levels are raising faster, and the fire season has grown by a month. These issues will be covered in future reports.

It appears the Governors staff of useful idiots have misled their boss.

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

16 Responses to Governor Brown: Climate Change Skeptics are Greatest Danger to California

  1. Steven Frisch says:

    “I know something about cults,” quipped Brown, a former seminary student. “I don’t want to say my time with the Jesuits was a cult experience, but it was dogmatic, somewhat one-sided to say the least, and not particularly open to contrary opinion.”

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      He probably didn’t recognize it as a cult when he *was* a Jesuit, and he doesn’t recognize the cultish tendencies of the IPCC True Believers either.

      By the way, to be one of the annointed 97/98% one had to only agree that
      1) it’s warmer now than a couple centuries ago, and
      2) humans have an effect on climate.

      These are also my answers to those questions, which did not touch on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming at all.

  2. Ben Emery says:

    Russ,
    I respect your opinion because it is based out of experience and training. I take your answers seriously and research what you have told me in the past. I also am usually the guy on the side of questioning the majority but on global warming I have to say you are way off base. I know you have a scientific background but not based in climatology. If I am having heart problems I go to a cardiologist not a optometrist. Both are based in sciences of medicine but are two totally different areas of study.

    Those who oppose global warming are placing a bet that drastically alters human existence on the planet if wrong out of the fear of lost profits for the status quo in energy. If this is wrong please tell me what the real opposition is about. I have stated before we (US) are placing ourselves so far behind the rest of the world when the entire planet shifts to alternative energies we will be purchasing everything from other nations because they are so far ahead of us on the production levels of the new technologies. The world has agreed and is moving in that direction yet the US is one of the only industrialized nations still debating the issue. Can that be because we have such a corrupted government and the energy industry is a big part of that corruption?

    • Russ says:

      Ben,

      I do not profit from my opposition to global warming. I am opposed to anthropogenic global warming because there is no hard science to support the hypothesis that small percentage of CO2 caused by humans has any influence on the temperature. Check out this video to see the how little humans contribute to the CO2 levels: http://youtu.be/wYLmLW4k4aI

      The hard sciences indicates that warming has proceed the rise in CO2 for over 600,000 years. The ices cores from Greenland and Antarctica clearly show that warming precedes the release of natural CO2 from the oceans.

      Even though the natural CO2 continues to increase, the warming stopped about 15 years ago and in the last 10 years we have started to see some cooling, in sea surface temperatures and in the satellite temperatures.
      You can see the satellite temperatures here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2011.png

      As for keeping up with the rest of the world, German solar companies are going broke, as the German Government reduces the subsidies. China has cut the cost of solar panels as low as they can go, and their market is crashing. The UK is having serious second thoughts about going green, the cost is too high and they are pulling government subsidies. Wind power is only producing 30% of its rated capacity and only when the wind blows. As it turns our wind power requires a backup fossil fuel plant be on line to handle the flux in wind energy. The Department of Energy is closing down the bio-diesel plants as they have failed to perform. Ethanol required 1.1 units of energy for every 1.0 units produced. Spain has stopped all subsidies to both wind and solar, unemployment is at 22%. Every green job killed 2.5 jobs in the regular job sectors.

      The US is not the only country debating the warming issue. Canada has just pulled out of the Kyoto agreement, too costly with no improvement in the reduction of CO2. It was an informal coalition of major emitters such as the USA, China, India, Brazil and Russia that succeeded in delaying any binding decisions on CO2 emissions caps for years to come at the Durban South Africa COP-17 Meeting. The US is not alone.

      I personally think that we should be exploring all of our nuclear options, from pebble bed reactors to neighborhood thorium reactors.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Ben, the opposition is because the science is in error, and only got this far with ugly, divisive rhetoric demonizing anyone who criticizes the IPCC bandwagon.

      Here’s a bit of homework… there are something like 11 general circulation models at the core of the IPCC work. None of them agree with each other, with estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling ranging from a 2C rise to a 6 or more C rise.

      Which one is correct?

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Ben, here’s a question for you…

      Imagine the fossil fuel industry wanting to use natural gas to generate power for me with virtually nothing but CO2 and water being the effluent from the power plant. On the other side is the Photovoltaic industry who want to make millions of acres of PV panels to supply the country with energy, at least while the sun shines.

      Assume for the sake of discussion that the pollution of the natural gas extraction and the pollution of the semiconductor fabrication and installation is roughly equivalent.

      Would you choose PV for yourself if it was six times as costly as the natual gas solution? If you were in the position to award a monopoly to PV, would you impose it if it was six times as costly?

  3. Russ says:

    Greg,

    Thanks for the insight. I could not find the two questions that were ask. I remembered they were not very relevant. But, the 97% keeps coming up time and time again.

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      Russ, the key point to that “study” is the cherrypicking that went on… they had to throw out 98% of the responses of the earth scientists they asked to participate to get what looks like a consensus, and then they misrepresent what was actually asked.

      It was not “do you believe CO2 from fossil fuels is a danger to the planet?”

    • Greg Goodknight says:

      They apparently asked a bunch of questions but the additional questions were not in the press releases.

      They may be reproduced in the thesis the student wrote for their Master’s. It may be available for purchase; doctoral dissertations are. If not, it may be available under an FOIA if you want to go to some trouble.

  4. D. King says:

    Well, now that Brown has said it and NBC has shown it, my only conclusion can be that the end is near…again!

    http://asiancorrespondent.com/71700/an-updated-history-of-last-chances-to-save-the-world/

  5. The scariest part to me is in BenE’s words. Unfortunately there are many people like him, including the bombastic Jerry Brown, who know absolutely nothing about the problem yet are self-placing into the cult of AGW. BenE says he would fo to a expert on AGW rather than believe Russ or probably Greg because they didn’t go to school and obtain a specific doctorate on AGW. Well, why would an apparent smart person like BenE and his ilk decide to believe the hoaxers portraying themselves as experts? Because they are nihilists. Humans have no value except in their destructive capabilities to the planet. So, if it wasn’t AGW it would be “rain forests” or asteroid. I have said from the first moment I started paying attention in the 90’s that the claims were political. It was about the terrible exploitation of the planet’s people by the Europeans. The transfer of the wealth stolen from those third world people had to be rectified and this became the way. Brown’s AP story in the Union this morning proves it in the wwords of the IPCC UN guy. He claims AGW is killing people in third world countries disproportianetly and we need to

    • Sean says:

      Todd,
      Did you ever get over the the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s web page? Its a UK organization that seems to focus on the consequences of “green” policies. There was an interesting article today on the impact of bio-fuels in the third world and the environment. http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/4569-matt-ridley-bioenergy-versus-the-planet.html The impacts are pretty devastating.

      The site also talks about the changing mood of the British population toward green policies. They are concurrently dealing with a government austerity program that’s limiting income while at the same time energy bills are becoming increasingly expensive due to the adoption of renewable energy. In essence, the general public is being squeezed and its affecting the low to middle class most severely. This is doing a lot to change minds, to get people to take a closer look at what they are getting for their sacrifice. Suddenly, green policies (and their consequences) are much more real when the bill arrives.

      I suspect that when the effect of AB32 on the price of electricity, transportation fuels and heating are fully realized, the base of support it has will erode. But I think the slow ramp up of the price impacts and inertia to changes in California’s government will mean that it will take several more years before it really sinks in that California is waging a futile effort to control the weather at great expense. But if you want a preview of what that will look like, look to Britain.

      • Todd Juvinall says:

        I’ll check it out. I heard somewhere this week that electricity rates have increased way up and it has nothing to do with the cost of generation and transportation. It has to do with add ons by government. I would like to see the numbers per kilowatt for an average bill without the add ons. Then we can see where the “frog” is being cooked. Do you know where that info ,ay be?

  6. tax ourselves and transfer the money to them.

  7. D. King says:

    “Governor Brown: Climate Change Skeptics are Greatest Danger to California”

    That’s right, California, the IPCC and all the other usefull idiot masters.

    http://www.real-science.com/noaa-2011-rainiest-drought-year-history

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: