Pennsylvania House Speaker frontrunners unpopular

If the frontrunners for PA Speaker of the House are so unpopular due to their leadership in state legislative party caucuses, then the rank-and-file should vote for somebody else... right... just like we are supposed to do out here in the hustings. But reality sets in. Third-parties rarely win in elections. People want to back somebody who can actually win. Republican John Perzel vs H. William DeWeese...

It looks as if that vote of newly elected 51st District state representive Timothy Mahoney (D)will make a difference in the final selection of a House Speaker.

Prior to the 2006 Primary election and General election in Pennsylvania, Democrat Mahoney said he would not support DeWeese for a leadership position.

Once elected, Mahoney initially, voted against DeWeese as Democrat Caucus leader, so it was reported. This was before the decision in Monroe County which placed Democrats in the lead for control of the House.

51st District candidates call for positive House leadership
By Chris Foreman
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, November 4, 2006

This fall, Mahoney has continued to say he won't back DeWeese for a leadership position in Harrisburg.

"I'll support (DeWeese) as a Democrat, but I'll not support his leadership because I think they made mistakes, and they need to pay for their mistakes if elected," Mahoney said.

DeWeese was one of the architects of the controversial legislative pay raise that lawmakers scrapped after public outcries. He went on to vote for its repeal...


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/fayette/s_478194.html

However, Mahoney reversed his stance when reports were showing Democrats may have won the majority in the House. When Democrats held in-House votes for the speakership, reportedly, Tim Mahoney voted yea.

Reportedly, Mahoney based his newfound support for DeWeese as Speaker of the PA House of Representatives on an open-records reform proposal he crafted which he wanted DeWeese to sponsor.

Bucks County Courier Times, Dec. 1, 2006
Newly elected lawmaker plans open records bill
By Alison Hawkes
Of the Bucks County Courier Times

The Pennsylvania Legislature's spending habits would become public under a bill that newly elected Fayette County Rep. Tim Mahoney said he is introducing within the first week of the new term.

Mahoney, a businessman who was elected on a government reform platform, said he has lawyers preparing a draft that will be modeled after Kentucky and Canadian law, which he said "goes just far enough" to make the public satisfied.

He said he's asking House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese to be the bill's cosponsor...

Bucks County Courier Times, Dec. 1 Newly elected lawmaker plans open records bill by Alison Hawkes Of the Bucks County Courier Times

...

Mahoney also said he would ask DeWeese to be a cosponsor in support of the bill. To get re-elected as leader last month, DeWeese said he would be open to a number of reforms, including making records more available to public scrutiny

.

http://www.headlinesanddeadlines.org/2006/Dec_07_06/open_records_bill.htm


The (Uniontown) Herald-Standard, Dec. 19 Mahoney drafts open records reform bill By Alison Hawkes Of the Herald-Standard
http://www.headlinesanddeadlines.org/2006/Dec_21_06/open_records.htm

The (Uniontown) Herald-Standard, Dec. 19 Mahoney drafts open records reform bill By Alison Hawkes
Of the Herald-Standard

Fayette County's representative-elect Tim Mahoney has drafted a bill requiring state government, including the long-exempt Legislature, to open its records to public inspection within 10 business days of a request.

The language, which he intends to introduce as a bill in the first week of the new session in January, has several elements that would radically change the way Harrisburg handles public records requests.

According to a draft of Mahoney's bill, the public would have a presumed right to internal government documents and the government agency would have to prove why a record should remain secret.

That turns the tables on existing law, in which the presumption is on citizens to prove a record should be made public

...

Mahoney drafts open records reform bill By Alison Hawkes, For the Herald-Standard December 19, 2006

Still no word whether DeWeese has penned his signature to the co-sponsorship request.

Interestingly, Tim Mahoney spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his campaign for the state PA House of Representatives seat.

Mahoney's campaign topped $200,000 By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard 12/08/2006

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17565287&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Reportedly, campaign contributions included those from:

Mahoney outspending Mikita 10-1 By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
11/05/2006

...Mahoney received $10,600 from political committees, in the category of contributions over $250. From those contributions, Mahoney received $1,000 from the (state Sen. J. Barry) Stout Election Committee of Eighty Four and $2,000 from the (state Sen. Vincent) Fumo for Senate committee of Philadelphia. The (state Rep. David) Levdansky for Legislature Committee ...

Sunday, November 05, 2006
Follow the M-ah-oney candidates receive from incumbent pay-grabbers

Which state legislators contributing to the campaigns took the pay raise and unvouchered expenses?

Contributing to Democratic candidate Timothy S. Mahoney
state Sen. Vincent Fumo
state Sen. J. Barry Stout

Which ones voted "no" on the pay raise and did not accept unvouchered expenses?

Contributing to Democratic candidate Timothy S. Mahoney

state Rep. David Levdansky

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/11/follow-m-ah-oney-candidates-receive.html

Nobody made much of a big deal of Mahoney's acceptance of the campaign monies from two PA Senate payjackers, or the turnaround on voting for DeWeese for any leadership position, and locals wonder why.

Now, in light of other defectors Mahoney's vote will be one that is watched locally by those who want to believe a person's word is as good as well, gold.

Will Mahoney reverse himself again, finding comfort with other DeWeese no-sirrees?

As to which of the unpopular frontrunners for the top leadership post will gather enough votes from the opposite party to put one of them over the top, that is to be seen come January 2, 2007.

Meanwhile, ponder the interconnections particularly regarding the issue of slots casinos.

Analysis: Slots casino license race comes down to final spin
Sunday, December 17, 2006 By Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

...

For another, Mr. Barden's Majestic Star casino, with its striking steel and glass frame, would greatly improve a section of Ohio River waterfront in desperate need of attention. He also is promising to finish off a North Shore riverfront trail system with a connection from the casino to the West End Bridge.

And while much has been made of Forest City's political ties to Gov. Ed Rendell and others, Mr. Barden has an important political benefactor on his side as well -- H. William DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, the incoming state House speaker.

Mr. DeWeese watched the Steelers win Super Bowl XL from Mr. Barden's private box and has described the casino owner as a "close confidant." Mr. Barden also attended the unveiling of a portrait of Mr. DeWeese several years ago and has supported the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus.

If the casino award is to be decided by politics, why wouldn't Mr. DeWeese want to call the shots when it comes to handing out the license for the biggest slots parlor in the western part of the state? Mr. DeWeese has one appointment to the board, former state Rep. Jeffrey Coy.

Mr. Barden has one other big advantage -- he is the only African American with a majority ownership stake among those competing for stand-alone slots parlors in the state, and legislators clearly made racial diversity a goal in crafting the language that legalized slot machine casinos...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06351/746784-336.stm

It will be interesting to discover who supports Perzel or DeWeese, and why...

Democrat plans to support Perzel, spoiling party speakership MARK SCOLFORO

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A veteran Democratic lawmaker told colleagues Saturday he supports Republican John Perzel for speaker of the state House of Representatives, a dramatic move that could foil his own party's hopes of assuming the leadership reins.

Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone of Berks County wrote in a letter to the Democratic caucus that he will cross party lines to help keep the speaker's gavel in Perzel's hands.

"I have always found Rep. Perzel to be a man of his word, and serious about issues of public policy," Caltagirone wrote. "I believe the people of Pennsylvania will be best served if he is elected as speaker on January 2, and he will have my support."

The speaker sets the House's voting agenda and moves bills into committees, making it the most powerful job in the chamber. Perzel has been speaker since 2003.

To get Caltagirone's support, Perzel agreed to push for rule changes to divide legislative committees equally between the parties, to split the chairmanships evenly and to adjourn at 10 p.m. unless there is a specific vote to extend session hours, Perzel spokesman Al Bowman said

...

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2006/12/31/ap-state-pa/d8mbdoeo0.txt

Harrisburg, PA (AP) Democrat plans to support Perzel for speaker of the House Democrat to back Perzel as House Speaker by Mario F. Cattabiani INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

HARRISBURG - For more than a month, Rep. John M. Perzel, quietly, persistently, desperately, has tried to find a way to keep his coveted House Speaker's gavel.

He may have found it in a disgruntled Democratic representative from Reading.

Rep. Thomas Caltagirone has sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues notifying them he plans to vote for Perzel (R., Phila.) as speaker next week.

Caltagirone's move, speculated for weeks, likely will mean that Perzel will have enough votes to continue as speaker, a position he has held since April 2003, despite Democrats holding a slim 102-101 majority in the House...

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/16352325.htm

Fly Under The Dome: Perzel Not Out Of The Woods Yet. 6 House GOPers Won’t Vote For Him…

http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/archives/12304

Capitolwire: Other House Members May Not Vote For DeWeese, Perzel

http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/archives/12306#comment-23637

See the following sites for more links gathered on this issue and sidebar wealth of links. also, a Poll

YOU DECIDE!
Will John Perzel Be Speaker Of The PA House After January 2nd?
Yes
No

http://www.grassrootspa.com/blog/

Poll includes choice of Surprises

http://voicepa.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

Now those are choices remember unlike what surprises occur on the DRE PAPERLESS TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING MACHINES...

See previous posts

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=timothy+mahoney

More:

VoicePA editor:

http://voicepa.blogspot.com/2007/01/representative-caltagirone-and-speaker.html

More

Tim Mahoney watching

2. LEGISLATIVE REFORM:

Pennsylvania has one of the largest State Governments in the nation. We don't need that many politicians. Tim would be willing to give up his seat in the interest of consolidating the legislative body. Tim is also committed to open government and disclosure. Pennsylvania residents should always have easy access not only to their state representation, but also to where and how their hard earned tax dollars are being spent.

http://www.votetimmahoney.com/platform.html

Endorsements

http://www.votetimmahoney.com/endorsements.html

Related issues

Group asks newcomers to sign pledge to refuse COLA

NEW LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS ARE ASKED TO TAKE A PLEDGE NOT TO ACCEPT COLA PAY RAISE
NOVEMBER 20, 2006

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dshswp8_18hkmdfz

How Foundation Grants Affect Public Policy

An Open Letter to the Signers of “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action” and Others Concerned About Global Warming

Endorsers of“A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor:An Evangelical Response to Global Warming"

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:CG9G1xHrVFAJ:www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/OpenLetter.pdf+harry+eager+global+warming&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/OpenLetter.pdf

State Global Warming Laws
How Foundation Grants Affect Climate Policy
By David Hogberg and James Dellinger

The Bush Administration has opted in-stead to promote voluntary agreements. One,dubbed the “Asia-Pacific Partnership on CleanDevelopment and Climate,” encourages the transfer of greenhouse-gas reducing tech-nologies between the U.S., India, Australia,China, Japan and South Korea and would involve the private sector in reducing green-house gases.

But that’s not good enough for the envi-ronmental movement. With its global warm-ing agenda stalled on the national level, greengroups are trekking to state capitals to pres-sure lawmakers to require mandatory caps onthe emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Funded heavily by major philanthropic foundations, particularly the Energy Foundation and, to a lesser extent, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the big guns of the environmental movement have won an im-pressive victory:

In 2005 seven states in the Northeast agreed to limit greenhouse gases by participating in a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. Green groups are nowmoving to create similar state and regionalagreements on the West Coast and in the South and Midwest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Foundation Watch 2June 2006 Editor: Matthew Vadum Publisher: Terrence Scanlon Foundation Watch is published by Capital Research Center, a non-partisan education and research organization, classified by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public charity. Address:1513 16th Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20036-1480 Phone: (202) 483-6900Long-Distance: (800) 459-3950E-mail Address:mvadum@capitalresearch.org

Web Site:http://www.capitalresearch.org Reprints are available for $2.50 prepaidto Capital Research Center.

Critics in the scientific community ob-serve that there is not enough hard evidence to justify the drastic policies proposed by global warming alarmists. But advocacy groups and their foundation funders are stampeding local communities and state lawmakers into taking actions they will regret.

New York and New England Take the Pledge In December 2005, the governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont arrived at a far-reaching agreement. They said that by the year 2019 their states would cut theirgreenhouse gas emissions by ten percent below 1990 levels using a “cap-and-trade”system. Under “cap-and-trade” every power plant in the RGGI states would have a fixed limit on the amount of greenhouse gases itcould emit. Power plants that exceeded the amount could purchase “credits” from power plants that emitted less than their prescribed limit. Although RGGI currently applies only to about 180 power plants, it is estimated thatit eventually could include some 600 electricity generators that emit greenhouse gases.

Interestingly, the governors of Massachusetts and Rhode Island declined to join the agreement, arguing that the price their power plants would have to pay to purchase the credits was too high. According to the agreement, each state legislature has to pass laws by December 31, 2008 to conform to RGGI,which is set to take effect on January 1, 2009.RGGI is the culmination of much pushingand pulling in Northeastern state capitals. ...

Page 3
3 June 2006 Foundation Watch For frequent updates on environmental groups,nonprofits, foundations, and labor unions, check out the CRC-Greenwatch Blog at

www.capitalresearch.org/blog

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/FW0606.pdf

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:69nLYV_5TsMJ:www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/FW0606.pdf+harry+eager+global+warming&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12

More

Targeting Freedom
Capital Research Center’s recently published book, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its consequences by Dr. Bonner Cohen was reviewed in the Washington Times.

12/26/2006

http://www.capitalresearch.org/

Words Banishedin 1976

at this point in time

scenario

macho

detante (made up by Henry Kissinger)

More discussion Fox 'n Friends of a University study

This one...

Lake Superior State University 2006 List of Banished Words

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php

During search couldn't help myself, had to click

http://cthomasstar.blogspot.com/2006/05/web-offers-pranks-celebs-and-hidden.html

State of Brainwash: Ronald Bailey

It is becoming clear. Ronald Bailey has been brainwashed after attending a United nations global climate change conference sometime before August 11, 2005.

Bailey is in a State of Brainwash. He's repeating and repeating and repeating We're all global warmers now... evidence of brainwashing... wherever he goes and whatever he is asked...

See previous posts which have led to this conclusion

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=ronald+bailey

Bailey appeared as a guest on Jim Lehrer program, August 4, 2006. The panel was discussing global warming. Bailey joined the group in progress, so there was a recap by Brown and then a question was posed to Bailey:

RONALD BAILEY, Reason Magazine: I'm delighted that the television goblins let me get to you finally.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK. We were just talking about the political conversation, where it stands now. We had mentioned earlier that there was this meeting in California between Governor Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair, a conversation in the public, in the media, a conversation in the business world. Where do you see things? Where do you see things shifting and how?

RONALD BAILEY: Well, basically I think that we're all global warmers now, that it's essentially going to be that we've all agreed that there is a trend toward a warmer planet and that humanity is, in fact, contributing to that trend.

Without really addressing the question at first, Bailey said:

"We're all global warmers now."

That exact phrase is what Bailey uses as the title of his August 11, 2005 piece in Reason Magazine noting a reversal of his long-standing position challenging global warming.

"We're all global warmers now."

Over a year later, on the News Hour program, it didn't matter what question Bailey was asked, watch the video part 2 at 3:04.

"we're all global warmers now..."

Scary, isn't it?

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place
Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH)

...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

Originally Aired: August 4, 2006
Deadly Heat Wave Reignites Climate Change Debate

A front of cool air moved over the East Coast Friday, bringing an end to a record-breaking heat wave that started last week in California and is blamed for nearly 200 deaths. Climatologists discuss the debate over the Earth's changing weather...


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec06/climate_08-04.html

You Tube

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s5yr6DFRNSk&mode=related&search=

Just rereading the comments to the Adler posting.

It's the only piece I can find to date that discusses at least Bailey's later article Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else. Ronald Bailey September 22, 2006

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html

wherein Bailey defends his past and disclaims any financial interest for the position he once held... plus we'd welcome showing up on the Volokh trackbacks, hope they'll will point right to this page, State of Brainwash: Ronald Bailey...

http://volokh.com/admin/trackbackdrum.pl?post=1159050814

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1159050814.shtml

Jonathan Adler, September 23, 2006 at 6:33pm] Ron Bailey Comes Clean

Science writer Ronald Bailey, a longtime skeptic about whether global warming presents an apocalyptic threat, responds to charges that he and other climate "skeptics" are nothing more than paid stooges for evil corporations. As Ron notes, his longtime skepticism of the climate threat can not be explained by his financial interest...

http://volokh.com/admin/trackbackdrum.pl?post=1159050814

http://volokh.com/posts/1159050814.shtml

Came across this piece January 1, 2007!

Senator 'trashes' climate meeting November 17 2006 at 11:20AM

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

Washington - The United States Senate's most vocal global warming skeptic, James Inhofe, on Thursday dismissed a United Nations meeting on climate change as "a brainwashing session."

Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who will step down as chairperson of the Environment and Public Works Committee in January, told a news conference, "The idea that the science (on global warming) is settled is altogether wrong."

A majority of scientists, many in the US government, accept that global warming is spurred by human actions and the emission of greenhouse gases. President George Bush said as much in July at a summit of industrialised nations.

Inhofe said he acknowledged that the planet is warming but disputed those who attribute it to human activity and the emission of greenhouse gases. Instead, he blamed climate change on natural cycles.

As an example of UN brainwashing at this week's climate change meeting in Nairobi, Inhofe held up a children's book he said was distributed at the gathering, called "Tore and the Town on Thin Ice."

He said the book, the tale of a fictional young Arctic villager who becomes aware of global warming when his dogsled crashes through thinning ice, relies on disputed science.

"This is paid for by the United Nations and it's brainwashing little kids," Inhofe said...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=143&art_id=qw1163753101536B251

Recall: Ronald Bailey attended the conference...

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Kolbert, Bailey & Easterbrook: global warming - debate over

All in agreement, now, "we're all global warmers now."

Aired August 4, 2006
Interview: News Hour with Jim Lehrer
Host Jeffrey Brown

See original transcript and You Tube video

Elizabeth Kolbert
Greg Easterbrook
Ronald Bailey (We're all global warmers now)

RONALD BAILEY, Reason Magazine: I'm delighted that the television goblins let me get to you finally.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK. We were just talking about the political conversation, where it stands now. We had mentioned earlier that there was this meeting in California between Governor Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair, a conversation in the public, in the media, a conversation in the business world. Where do you see things? Where do you see things shifting and how?

RONALD BAILEY: Well, basically I think that we're all global warmers now, that it's essentially going to be that we've all agreed that there is a trend toward a warmer planet and that humanity is, in fact, contributing to that trend.

The extent of that contribution is, I'm not quite nearly as sure of it as Ms. Kolbert is, but I think that where we stand is we all now agree that the temperature is increasing and that we probably need to do something about it.

Some of the proposals that are coming out, the symbolic stuff, the political theater that Tony Blair and Schwarzenegger engaged in, are not simply -- they're just political theater. They're not at all solutions to the problem.

JEFFREY BROWN: Why do you call it political theater, and why do you think they're motivated to do it?

RONALD BAILEY: Well, Schwarzenegger's clearly motivated to do it because he's trying to differentiate himself from President Bush. He's up for re-election, and he's got a real problem in a state that is predominantly Democratic, so he's basically selecting global warming and stem-cell research and that kind of thing as a way of differentiating himself from an unpopular president.

But one of the things that -- I did happen to overhear some of the conversation, and I have to agree with Gregg Easterbrook that very likely is the fact, if we set up this situation so that scientists and entrepreneurs can come up with these new technologies, then we should be able to solve the problem. We're not nearly in as desperate a situation as I believe some people argue that we are

...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec06/climate_08-04.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=44bmzqYM1HUPart 1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=s5yr6DFRNSk&mode=related&search=Part 2

Later find comments to Hit and Run column notifying readers of Bailey's (we're all global warmers now) appearance on News Hour, transcript link...

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/115007.html

Uh, not everybody agrees with Bailey...

August 18, 2006 Sunstein on Global Warming

Anonymous said...
I wouldn't know a Coasian deal from a Corsican. I can direct you to http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_Evidence/index.html site which clearly states that there have been hundreds of ice ages followed by (you guessed it) Global Warming Events over the last 2.5 million years. Now I don't know about you, but an event that happened hundreds of times kind of looses it's special identity as a 'unique' event that can be pinned on our long suffering species Homo Sapien...

CONTINUED

matthew said...
Everybody should read this speech by Michael Crichton.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

Click on "Aliens cause global warming." Its not hyperbole to say most scientists' very livelihood depends on outside funding and outside funding has always followed who has the most alarmist conclusions. As this speech shows, this cycle has happened so many times with alarmist theories such as Nuclear Winter.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/08/sunstein-on-global-warming.html


Reading Professor's recommended reading for students two sides of global warming note date April 4, 2005 was a mere month before the time of Ronald Bailey's announcement We're all global warmers now...

mentioned in class today (4/4/05) that it can be hard to sort through contradictory claims made by opposing sides in environmental debates. Some websites I have found helpful myself are the following. Click here for a website on "anti-environmental myths." For a contrasting perspective, critical of much of the environmental movement, click here to see the columns by Reason magazine's science correspondent. (Reason is a libertarian magazine.) I can't vouch for Bailey's reliability (or for the reliability of the anti-environmental myths website, for that matter). But Bailey has broken ranks with many environmental skeptics and conceded that DDT does thin the eggs of some bird species, which shows some commitment on his part to respect scientific evidence.

http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/cduncan/250/250.htm

Don't forget the refrain now. We're all global warmers now.

We're All Global Warmers Now, Ronald Bailey, August 11, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

More here to compare

Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Island on global warming theory list; Bush Admin. points to climate change phenomenon

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/island-on-global-warming-theory-list.html

Tuesday, December 19, 2006
52 new species found bolster Crichton State of Fear

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/52-new-species-found-bolster-crichton.html

Monday, December 18, 2006
State of Fear Exposes Truth of Deception
The post includes material from those who have critiqued Crichton's book

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/state-of-fear-exposes-truth-of.html

Monday, December 11, 2006
global warming gaining skeptics ? or !

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/global-warming-gaining-skeptics.html

Ronald Bailey (August 11, 2005) We're all global warmers now...

for some reason, I just can't get that phrase out of my head.

Ronald Bailey Admits He's Wrong About Global Warming
Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine fame admits he'd been wrong about global warming.

(Has Bailey been brainwashed at one of the United Nation's Climate Change Conferences?)

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/ronald-bailey-admits-hes-wrong-about.html

Thursday, December 28, 2006
Net the Truth Online: A destiny

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/net-truth-online-destiny.html

Michael Crichton's State of Fear messageboard (back to the reality of non-fiction/fiction/faction)


http://www.crichton-official.com/messageboard.html

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Ronald Bailey admits ownership 50 shares Exxon Mobil

Ronald Bailey should come clean about all of his financial investments... and include such on every article he writes... start a new trend in public disclosure...

In Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts?, Ronald Bailey, November 24, 2006, Bailey admits

Disclosure: I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil stock. So what!

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116887.html

So what? Reason's environmental science correspondent/staffer switched his skeptical position on global warming August 11, 2005 noting such in his article:

We're All Global Warmers Now, Ronald Bailey, August 11, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

Prior to that time, had Bailey invested in Exxon Mobil? Or was an investment in Exxon Mobil made after Bailey wrote We're All Global Warmers Now?

Bailey mentions his switch again most notably in

An Inconvenient Truth Gore as climate exaggerator Ronald Bailey June 16, 2006

I have long been a critic of former Vice-President Al Gore, but as a recent convert to the view that humanity is contributing significantly to the current increase in average global temperatures, I was trying to keep a somewhat open mind about his new global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html

Bailey also reveals (apparently for the first time)(that we can find)

Disclosure: I own a small amount of ExxonMobil stock and I am looking forward to investing in biotech cellulosic ethanol production someday.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html

However, in the May article, Bailey has no such disclosure about Exxon Mobil stock ownership...

Peak Oil Panic
Is the planet running out of gas? If it is, what should the Bush administration do about it? Ronald Bailey | May 2006 Print Edition

...If ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, or other private companies actually owned the reserves, the world would be in a much more secure position with regard to oil production. Instead, we are subject to the whims of figures like Chavez, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and must worry about the doubtful stability of their personalities and regimes. (To be sure, even a private reserve under such a regime would face the constant threat of nationalization or other interference.) In the mid-1990s, the world had more than 10 million barrels per day of spare production capacity. That figure has fallen to between 1 and 2 million barrels, which means that any significant disruption in supplies can cause prices to soar...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

As well, notice how he treats the science skeptics vs. the pro-global warming camp:

He simply doesn't provide a link to the "few" scientists, his term...

In any case few climate scientists now contest the idea that humanity is contributing to the current warming trend. All of the various data sets, surface thermometers, satellites and weather balloons, now show global average warming of about +0.16 degrees Celsius per decade since 1979. Whether or not this rate of warming would lead to catastrophe or not is still very much an open question. So what, if anything, should we do about any future warming?

Meanwhile, Bailey does provide a link to humanity is contributing...

By leaving out a link to climate scientists who remain skeptics, despite Bailey's conversion, Bailey skews the article.

The link to catastrophe or not doesn't work...

In November, Bailey, with a new attitude, was all scheduled to attend the Climate Change conference.

He's attended those in the past where we suspect he'd undergone brainwashing , activated precisely on August 11, 2005 to coincide with the release of three articles in Science Mag.

Global warming heads up: I will be covering the United Nations' next climate change conference in Nairobi beginning on November 13.

Discussing Climate Change In Kenya
World leaders meet to discuss improbable solutions to a questionable problem that may not be solvable. Ronald Bailey November 13, 2006

...the Left-leaning British Institute for Public Policy Research issued an alarming report last week claiming that humanity has “only ten years to save the planet.” The IPPR asserts that “global emissions of CO2 peak within ten years and fall by 70 to 80 per cent by 2050, we will face an unacceptable risk of causing a rise of more than 2°C, which would result in dangerous and irreversible impacts.”...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116681.html

Oh 'm gosh, Bailey provides a link for "only ten years to save the planet."

And, while Bailey does disclose:

Disclosure: I gratefully acknowledge that the International Policy Network in Britain is paying my expenses to cover the conference in Nairobi. Here’s what the folks at Exxonsecrets say about IPN and here’s what they say about me...

Absent are any new disclosures about financial investments... how does that add to the lining in our pockets?

Carbon Reduction or Poverty Reduction, Not Both
Ron Bailey files his second dispatch from the UN global warming conference in Nairobi, Kenya. Ronald Bailey November 14, 2006

...Tomorrow—the environment ministers finally gather here in Nairobi to ratify and complete what their underlings have been negotiating for the past week which, as far as I can tell right now, isn't much. A couple of side events intrigue me so I may cover sessions on climate and forests, the role of policies the enable adaptation to climate change once the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end in 2012, and another that asks if it is time to set a long-term global climate. The last is basically asking where humanity wants to set the planet's thermostat.

Disclosure: I gratefully acknowledge that the International Policy Network in Britain is paying my expenses to cover the conference in Nairobi. Here’s what the folks at Exxonsecrets say about IPN and here’s what they say about me...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116724.html

Disappointed, again, no new investment ideas...

Pay It Forward
What can carbon markets do for economic development? Ronald Bailey November 15, 2006

...Tomorrow, I may look in on sessions updating the state of play in Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme and see what the World Bank has to say about sustainable development in a carbon-constrained world.

Disclosure: I gratefully acknowledge that the International Policy Network in Britain is paying my expenses to cover the conference in Nairobi. Here’s what the folks at Exxonsecrets say about IPN and here’s what they say about me...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116751.html

Nope, no new investment insider tips...

The Baptist and the Bootlegger
An unlikely coalition for climate control

Ronald Bailey | November 16, 2006

...

In other words, if a company can reduce its emissions below its allocation, it can make money by selling its remaining allocation to another company. Of course, a company can also make windfall profits if the government allocates it more permits for emissions than it actually needs.

So are carbon markets here to stay?...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116779.html

Hey, this is entertaining, and useful right, carbon trading markets... hmmm...

He has a link at windfall profits... hidden message in the links, that's what we're thinking...

Power tool
European energy groups involved in carbon trading are manipulating the scheme for profit, not principle, writes David Gow Wednesday May 17, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1829568,00.html

His disclosure...

Tomorrow—The 12th Conference of the Parties (COP-12) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and 2nd Meeting of the Parties (MOP-2) to the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end. I will report whatever decisions the diplomats make and reactions by other participants to those decisions.

Disclosure: I gratefully acknowledge that the International Policy Network in Britain is paying my expenses to cover the conference in Nairobi. Here’s what the folks at Exxonsecrets say about IPN and here’s what they say about me

...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116779.html

"Climate Change Tourists" Go Home! The Nairobi global warming conference grinds to an end Ronald Bailey November 17, 2006

...

And perhaps some rethinking has been going on. Halldor Thorgeirsson, deputy executive secretary of the UNFCCC, mentioned that a South African delegate had made interesting observation. The South African turned the usual formulation of "what can we do to pursue development under the constraints imposed by climate change" on its head to "what can we do to address climate change under the constraints of the need for development and poverty eradication?"

Poverty eradication is a massive problem

...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116805.html

Invest in poor countries?

After sifting through dozens of online articles by Bailey searching for new revelations and what he links and doesn't link, we'll find out Bailey is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, or Trilateral Commission... well he does mention a November meeting... Council of Foreign Relations... was it open to the public, or only members can attend? What does go on there?

Meanwhile, we're tracking Bailey to see when he provides a link to those windmill companies! (Were thinking of that for remote property where nagbores won't complain about destroying the beauty of the forest)

California watching

Climate Change Lemmings Jump Off The Cliff California signs onto Kyoto Protocol just as it falls apart Ronald Bailey October 27, 2006

To do this, the state is supposed to set up a carbon trading scheme modeled on Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme in which CO2 emitters are issued emission permits and then allowed to trade them...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/38405.html

Bailey nicely provides a link at Emissions Trading Scheme

Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission.htm

More

Pundits who contest climate change should tell us who is paying them
Covert lobbying, in the UK as well as the US, has severely set back efforts to combat the world's biggest problem

George Monbiot Tuesday September 26, 2006 The Guardian

...The story begins with a body called the International Policy Network (IPN). Like many other organisations that have received money from Exxon, it describes itself as a thinktank or an independent educational charity, but a more accurate description, it seems to me, would be "lobby group". While the BBC would seldom allow someone from Bell Pottinger or Burson-Marsteller on air to discuss an issue of concern to their sponsors without revealing the sponsors' identity, the BBC has frequently allowed IPN's executive director, Julian Morris, to present IPN's case without declaring its backers. IPN has so far received $295,000 from Exxon's corporate headquarters in the US. Morris told me that he runs his US office "solely for funding purposes".

IPN argues that attempts to prevent (or mitigate) man-made climate change are a waste of money. It would be better to let it happen and adapt to its effects...

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1881023,00.html

FACTSHEET: International Policy Network - North America, IPN

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=108

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=155

2000 Bailey

4/20/00 12:45 p.m.
Leonardo Di Caprio, Climatologist
Earth Day is a festival of bad science.

By Ronald Bailey, science correspondent, Reason magazine, and author of Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet

So what is going on with the climate? It is true that the global average temperature has gone up by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and it is likely that a small portion of that increase is the result of warming caused by humanity putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The vexed question is, How much more warming is likely in the 21st century? A preliminary draft report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that the Earth’s surface is likely to warm at least 2 degrees and as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit, and that sea level could rise between 4 inches and 3 feet by the end of this century. Keep in mind that the past century saw a temperature increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit and 8 inches in sea level rise, without causing global disaster. If the lower temperatures and lower sea level rise occur over the next one hundred years, then there’s not much of a climate emergency. It’s no wonder that those huge IPCC ranges cause a lot of sincere disagreement on the seriousness of the issue...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment042000d.html

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry about Global Warming

(Paperback)
by Thomas Moore

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fear-Shouldnt-Global-Warming/dp/1882577655

Global Warming and other Eco-Myths
How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death
Edited by Ronald Bailey Prima Publishing HC, 320 pgs. US$24.95/C$37.95
ISBN: 0-7615-3660-4
Battling environmentalist myths By Steven Martinovich
web posted January 13, 2003

Environmentalism, writes editor Ronald Bailey in his introduction to Global Warming and other Eco-Myths, is a political ideology without a future. Though it remains politically popular, environmentalism has one giant Achilles Heel which will eventually doom it. Because it is a political ideology with a scientific basis, logically all one must do is disprove the science behind it to discredit the movement.

"[E]nvironmentalism now stands as the only global ideological competitor to liberal democratic capitalism. Environmentalism is the latest totalizing ideology that has arisen in the West during the past two centuries. Like communism before it, ideological environmentalism wants to claim the mantle of science," he writes, "to justify its political programs because in the post-Enlightenment world, science is the final arbiter of what is objectively true or not. However, as the communists discovered, the failure of one's ideology to correspond to reality is ultimately fatal."

With that thought in mind Bailey has assembled a collection of essays from the likes of ...




http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0103/0103globalwarmingecomyths.htm

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=7281&st=8

We Are All Global Warmers Now... 9/1/2006

If, as Reason science correspondent Ron Bailey has written, "we are all global warmers now," then what is the debate over global warming?

Scientists generally agree that the surface temperature of the earth has risen by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that part of that increase in temperature is attributable to human behavior. The debate, however, focuses on the extent to which humans are responsible for global warming (as opposed to natural forces), and the extent to which global warming will persist in the future. In addition, scientists and public policy experts also disagree about the proper response to global warming...


http://www.abetterearth.org/debates/id.2589/debates_detail.asp

Here is some more "fuel for the fire" on this subject (bad pun intended).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110006314
Hockey Stick on Ice
Politicizing the science of global warming.

This article shows how one of the most popular "studies" about global warming, that is frequently used to "prove" that global warming is a recent phenomenon coinciding with the heavy industrialization of the West, has some serious problems with it.

In the medieval ages, there was a warming period (somewhere around 1000 AD), that was followed by a "mini Ice Age" in the 14th Century.

However, when climatologists and astrophysicists challenged the data and math used by Michael Mann to make his "hockey stick" study, this is what happened:

http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=7281&st=8

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Tipping Point Doom

Warming hits 'tipping point'
Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting

Ian Sample, science correspondent Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.
Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.


Article continues

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1546824,00.html

Climate warning as Siberia melts 11 August 2005 NewScientist.com news service
Fred Pearce


http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500.html

Published on Thursday, September 7, 2006 by the Associated Press
Scientists Find New Global Warming 'Time Bomb’
by Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON — Global warming gases trapped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts far higher than previously thought and may trigger what researchers warn is a climate time bomb

...The permafrost issue has caused a quiet buzz of concern among climate scientists and geologists. Specialists in Arctic climate are coming up with research plans to study the permafrost effect, which is not well understood or observed, said Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a study group of 300 scientists.

“It’s kind of like a slow-motion time bomb,” said Ted Schuur, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and co-author of the study in Science...

Most of the yedoma is in little-studied areas of northern and eastern Siberia. What makes that permafrost special is that much of it lies under lakes; the carbon below gets released as methane. Carbon beneath dry permafrost is released as carbon dioxide.

Using special underwater bubble traps, Walter and her colleagues found giant hot spots of bubbling methane that were never measured before because they were hard to reach.

“I don’t think it can be easily stopped; we’d really have to have major cooling for it to stop,” Walter said.

Scientists aren’t quite sure whether methane or carbon dioxide is worse. Methane is far more powerful in trapping heat, but only lasts about a decade before it dissipates into carbon dioxide and other chemicals. Carbon dioxide traps heat for about a century.

“The bottom line is it’s better if it stays frozen in the ground,” Schuur said. “But we’re getting to the point where it’s going more and more into the atmosphere.”

Vladimir Romanovsky, geophysics professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said he thinks the big methane or carbon dioxide release hasn’t started yet, but it’s coming. In Alaska and Canada — which have far less permafrost than Siberia — it’s closer to happening, he said. Already, the Alaskan permafrost is reaching the thawing point in many areas.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/arctic/permafrost_melting.htm


17 May 2006
El Niño and Global Warming
Filed under: Climate Science Oceans— group @ 9:49 am
By Rasmus Benestad & Raymond Pierrehumbert

This is the first part of a planned mini-series of 3 posts on tropical climate, circulation, and oceanic response in conjunction with a global warming. Climate change related to a global warming is more than just temperature and precipitation -massive atmospheric circulations change too, and these changes can have consequences

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/

Well, not to sound too catty, but I have to admit, I got a kick out of two suggestions of AGW causes in the questions in the Q & A in the Seattle times: (1) the effects of heat from cigarette smoke, and (2) the effect of human body heat!

Do you mean to say you guys haven't included these important "forcings" in your models? In that case, you can count me as a skeptic!

Also, what about the WV effect of increased Chai consumption?

Comment by dan allan — 17 Oct 2005 @ 4:31 pm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/q-a-global-warming/

29. The following is part of an article that was printed last year ---
{Vintage Wine Records Trace Climate Change to 1300s
John Roach
for National Geographic News
November 17, 2004

Connoisseurs may pore over grape-harvest records in search of the perfect vintage of wine. But a team of French scientists and historians is toasting the same records for the insights they yield on past climate...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/q-a-global-warming/

120. How about this statement I just recevied denying global warming:

"As to the global warming issue, the argument is so full of hype and scare tactics that I for one have decided that it is a political argument and not a scientific argument at all. In fact, while there is some evidence of a shrinking arctic ice cap in the Beaufort sea areas over the last decade, there is growth in the iceland glacier one of the largest in the world, there is growth in the section of ice due north of Canada (a map that Mark York put up) and there is a significant amount of research that shows that the antarctic ice cap is growing fairly rapidly while the Ross Ice shelf is shrinking."..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/q-a-global-warming/

Mark York?

http://mayork.blogspot.com/

http://www.markyork.blogspot.com/

Global Warming Snowstorm in Denver Again

Denver Gets Blitzed by Another Snowstorm
Dec 29 10:00 AM US/Eastern
By CHASE SQUIRES Associated Press Writer

The second major snow storm in a week pounded Colorado on Friday, burying the foothills under another 2 feet of snow, shutting down highways and forcing the cancellation of hundreds of flights at the Denver airport.
The storm stretched across the Rocky Mountains into the western Plains, where the National Weather Service warned that the gusting wind could whip up blinding whiteouts...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/29/D8MAIR880.html

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Global Warming Science Speak: We aren't able to connect all the dots, but

Ancient ice shelf snaps and breaks free from the Canadian Arctic
Dec 28 6:41 PM US/Eastern

Ancient ice shelf snaps and breaks free from the Canadian Arctic STEVE LILLEBUEN (CP) - A giant ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields has snapped free from Canada's Arctic, leaving a trail of icy boulders floating in its wake.
The mass of ice broke clear from the coast of Ellesmere Island, about 800 kilometres south of the North Pole. Warwick Vincent of Laval University, who studies Arctic conditions, travelled to the newly formed ice island and couldn't believe what he saw. "It was extraordinary," Vincent said Thursday, adding that in 10 years of working in the region he has never seen such a dramatic loss of sea ice.

"This is a piece of Canadian geography that no longer exists."

The collapse was so powerful that earthquake monitors 250 kilometres away picked up tremors from it.

Scientists say it is the largest event of its kind in 30 years and point their fingers at climate change as a major contributing factor.

"We think this incident is consistent with global climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 per cent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.

"We aren't able to connect all of the dots .?.?. but unusually warm temperatures definitely played a major role."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_n122847A.xml.html

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Net the Truth Online: A destiny

Authors Marian Salzman and Ira Matathia highlight the future in their book NEXT NOW, on Fox 'n Friends early this morning. Then the trio of Fox anchors, including Kiera and Alyson, and Brian Kilmeade were on to Rosie vs Trump... then they were on to Senator John Kerry...

Depressing stuff, Next Now authors revealed... terrorism grows in USA... global warming is here to stay...

Yep, my ears picked up on the prediction "global warming is here to stay" since finding just yesterday Ronald Bailey, who for decades wrote about the global warming over-the-edge-of-reason hype, penned EcoScam and edited Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death, totally reversed his opinion on global warming.

In We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place August 11, 2005, Ron Bailey announces:

"Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up..."

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) "...

If the likes of Bailey can admit he's been wrong on global warming, what is next? Will we be able to discover all the truth - on the internet?

Since nobody else is doing this, we will.

Compare after Bailey's "epiphany," conversion to what has been called a religious movement...

http://www.reason.com/search/?terms=ronald+bailey+global+warming&submit=Go

and before his conversion

Rush to Judgment Ronald Bailey | April 2000

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27654.html

Back to the future, for now. As we are on a need to know everything about everything before we kick off this third planet from the sun, well, we need to review the future, in the present.

7 years from now, 70 years from now... why worry about today when we can worry about tomorrow.

Happy New Year 2077!

Actually, why worry about today, or tomorrow, or the year 2700?

Will have to make a trek to the library to reserve NEXT NOW.

In the meantime, check out the status of Google's book print project (see Googlepedia,) Google's massivedigitalized texts online project .

This post is a highlight of those issues of particular interest to Net the Truth Online into the future:

For posts concerning any of these topics, please conduct a search using the blogger feature at the top left corner of the site.

is the USA a republic or a democracy and why does it matter (this is not mere semantics - the difference matters)

global warming theory (despite Ron Bailey's reversal, skeptics remain, see those posting to Bailey's 2006 column: Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey May 3, 2006, 10:44am)

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

the most astonishing statement to be made in the exchanges is one made by Bailey in response to Matt:

Matt L | May 3, 2006, 11:14am | #

From the NOAA press release...

One issue does remain however, and that is related to the rates of warming in the tropics. Here, models and theory predict an amplification of surface warming higher in the atmosphere. However, this greater warming aloft is not evident in three of the five observational data sets used in the report. Whether this is a result of uncertainties in the observed data, flaws in climate models, or a combination of these is not yet known. Using the evidence available, the author team favors the first explanation.

So since the data doesn't support their models, the data is wrong, not the models? Is that what they are saying?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Ron Bailey May 3, 2006, 11:20am | #

Matt: I believe that they are inclined that way because as new data from the polar and temperate portions of the globle came in and was corrected, they tended to become consistent with the models. The majority of the NOAA panel obviously expects the same thing to happen with tropical temperatures--we'll see if they're right. Still, you ask a great question.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Doesn't Bailey realize he's used the same terminology that clarifies nothing.

tended to become consistent?

NOAA panel obviously expects the same thing to happen?

we'll see if they're right?

Bob Carter writes: There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 by Bob Carter Filed: 09/04/2006)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

So that issue will continue to be pursued here.

natural hormone replacement (bioidenticals vs synthetic hormone replacement therapy)

electronic voting machines voter verified paper audit trail (malfunctions vs human error)

voter identification card (privacy concerns vs fraud prevention)

NAFTA superhighway (details hidden)

Article V Constitutional Convention

one world order/one world government

9/11 official government conspiracy theoryvs 9/11 truth movement, 9/11 scholars, conspiracy theorists

illegal immigration and Hazleton, Pennsylvania's sovereignty (status lawsuit/resolution)

danger Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention 2007 and beyond

Pennsylvania Keystone Opportunity Zones (how are KOZs constitutional?) related issues including eminent domain

autism and thimerisol controversy health related issues men, women, and our precious children

get the US out of the UN (John Birch Society, World Net Daily)

is the gifted program rigged?

what does No Child Left Behind Act have to do with public education?

will Americans remember the No Child Left Behind Act was unveiled by George W. Bush during his Florida trip to the Booker Elementary School September 11, 2001?

does the Patriot Act apply to US citizenswhen it was supposed to apply to foreign terrorists

The reason Net the Truth Online continues is because of a personal obsessiveness to find truth, and a mission to share findings with readers like you. You want to know, we want to know as much as possible that is factual and true.

Fox 'n Friends chatting now, not about Next Now... John Kerry eats alone in Iraq??

"tell us the true story," says Brian Kilmeade...

Exactly!

Kilmeade gets immediate response to his query... emails from a father whose son is in Iraq... confirms Kerry ate alone, only two reporters showed up for a press conference...

"We only want to know the truth," says Kilmeade.

Hey that's what Net the Truth Online unabashedly wants for the new year, and beyond...

Truth in 2007... drink a cup of green tea to that (subliminal suggestion)

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Andrew Olmsted

April 11, 2006
Global Warming Skeptics Strike Back
So, a few weeks after ABC News and Time take global warming scaremongering to the next level, a paleoclimatologist in Australia tells us that average global temperatures have been steady over the past seven years, despite ever-increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere during that period. Professor Carter points out that periods of warming and cooling over the past century have not tracked with periods of increasing CO2 emissions and suggests that global warming is just another way for government bureaucrats to increase their power base by creating an emergency that they will have to be given extensive powers to fight.

I am sympathetic to such an argument due to my tendency to prefer as little government as is humanly possible, and the news the temperature hasn't actually changed over the past seven years is certainly interesting. But as I've noted in the past regarding such complex scientific matters, the climate is simply too intricate a system for this data to really prove anything to us. Just because CO2 buildup in the atmosphere may cause global warming, it does not necessarily follow that we will see a precise relationship between levels of CO2 and average global temperatures. It may be that the temperature increases require certain threshold levels of CO2, which would produce just what we're seeing now, a long increase followed by a steady-state situation for an indeterminate time until CO2 levels reach the next threshold, at which point we may see temperature increases again. On the other hand, there may be feedback loops we're not yet aware of through which the Earth's climate adjusts to the warming conditions. The possibilities are effectively endless, and the only way we're going to know for sure is probably through a lot more research and may well happen after the fact.

Don't get me wrong; I am not suddenly endorsing the consensus view of global warming in an attempt to remain contrarian. I am no less agnostic on the question of global warming now than I was before, this is just one more interesting data point. My position remains one of patience. If anthropogenic global warming is occurring, then I suspect we will be far better prepared to deal with it by continuing to grow our economy than by crippling ourselves and condemning millions to death by shutting down the global economy in hopes of preventing something we can't be sure of. If there are ways to switch to energy sources that do not generate CO2, or that generate less CO2, then I have no objection to making those changes if and when they're economically feasible, but I'd prefer to avoid the market-warping effects of government intervention. In fact, I would truly love to see a ten-year moratorium placed on any government action regarding global warming, if only because the only way I think we're likely to see the science placed ahead of the politics of global warming is by removing global warming from the political debate. As long as global warming remains a political question, we'll continue to see each side use whatever science they can find to support their position and to attack any science supporting the other side, without regard for the evidence as a whole. None of us are served by that argument...

http://andrewolmsted.com/archives/cat_global_warming.html

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming

Ronald Bailey Admits He's Wrong About Global Warming

Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine fame admits he'd been wrong about global warming.

(Has Bailey been brainwashed at one of the United Nation's Climate Change Conferences?)

See posts which have all led to this conclusion (State of Brainwash)

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=ronald+bailey

He has attended such conferences and in November 2006 continued to attend, writing a series of article...

December 15, 2003 RONALD BAILEY ALL OVER MILAN

http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/000636.html

Bailey announced his reversal...

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place

Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). That data set showed a positive trend of 0.088 degrees centigrade per decade until recently. On a straight line extrapolation that trend implied warming of less than 1.0 degree centigrade by 2100.

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data. When this drift is taken into account, the temperature trend increases by an additional 0.035 degrees per decade, raising the UAH per-decade increase to 0.123 degrees centigrade. Christy points out that this adjustment is still within his and Spencer's +/- 0.5 margin of error. What's the upshot? Although reluctant to make straight-line extrapolations, Christy notes in an e-mail, "The previous linear extrapolation indicated a temperature of +0.9 C +/- 0.5 C in 2100, the new data indicate a temperature of +1.2 +/- 0.5 C."

However, the Remote Sensing Systems team has made some additional adjustments, such that their global trend is 0.193 degrees per decade. Christy and Spencer disagree with those additional RSS adjustments, but acknowledge that it's an open scientific question which team is correct

...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

Astonishing development since Bailey edited a book entitled:

Global Warming and Other Eco Myths How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death

...

According to a number of respected scientists, however, leaders of the environmental movement are guilty of twisting - and sometimes manufacturing - facts in an effort to frighten people into joining their cause. In this eye-opening book, some of the most respected researchers in the US explode the myths behind much of the doom and gloom of today's environmental movement. Readers will discover how the hysteria about global warming, overpopulation, mass extinctions, coming food shortages, biotechnology, energy shortages and more are grounded not in reason but in false science and a fear of progress. Ultimately, this book will show that uniting much of the environmental movement is an agenda that is not so much antipollution as antihuman

...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Other-Eco-Myths/dp/0761536604

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Other-Myths-Environmental/dp/B000BZ6UR6/ref=pd_sim_b_3/002-7371255-1687258

and another

The True State of The Planet (The Free Press)

http://www.amazon.com/True-State-Planet-Ronald-Bailey/dp/0028740106

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/bailey.html

and another

Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet (Paperback)
by Ronald Bailey (Editor)

http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Report-2000-Revisiting-Planet/dp/0071342605

Wrote numerous Op-Ed pieces and gave countless interviews challenging global warming

Interview listings

http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3300

Another Bailey book entitled:

Ecoscam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse

As to the alleged global warming crisis, he reminds us that just 15 years ago "eco-doomsayers" were predicting the advent of a new ice age

...

http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Scam-False-Prophets-Ecological-Apocalypse/dp/0312086989

Bailey's columns regarding Michael Crichton's State of Fear entitled:

Ron Bailey's review in the Wall Street Journal:

A Chilling Tale By RONALD BAILEY December 10, 2004; Page W1

http://commonsblog.org/archives/000246.php

The Global Warming Code
Michael Crichton tells the truth. Ronald Bailey | May 2005

Excerpt:

What about the trend in global average temperatures, a question central to the debate in State of Fear? According to satellite data, since 1978 the planet has been warming up at a rate of 0.08 degree Celsius per decade. Simple arithmetic reveals that, if that rate continues, the planet will warm by 0.8 degree Celsius by the end of the century. That compares with an increase of 0.6 degree Celsius during the 20th century. No catastrophe there. Indeed, Crichton has one of his characters note the costly uselessness of the supposedly heat-reducing Kyoto Protocols

...
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32184.html

A mere couple of months later, Bailey pens his shocker:

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

Listing of Bailey's columns on global warming

http://www.reason.com/topics/topic/150

Notice, just the day before announcing he's no longer a global warming skeptic, August 10, 2005, it seemed all was wrong about global warming's catastrophic theory, with Bailey using assuming... if... if and questioning:

The Pleasure of Climate Change A Bush administration global warming breakthrough? Ronald Bailey | August 10, 2005

"Assuming dangerous global warming is happening. What to do about it? If accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere— gases produced by burning fossil fuels and other human activities—are to blame for increasing global temperatures, the adage "the first thing you do when you find you're in hole is stop digging" comes to mind. So the obvious idea is, why not stop emitting greenhouse gases? ...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34991.html

Next day, Bailey pens

We're All Global Warmers Now Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place Ronald Bailey | August 11, 2005

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up

....

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html

What happened between August 10, 2005 and August 11, 2005?

Bailey stumps readers of his columns in Reason Magazine online a year later as well as shown in follow-up posts to another article.

Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey | May 3, 2006, 10:44am

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

What happened to Ronald Bailey between approximately May 2005 and August 2005?

Did Bailey attend a United Nations summit featuring a film about global warming?

Were subliminal messages hidden in the film and handouts?

Was a target date of August 11, 2005 set for global warming skeptics to receive email notifications about three studies which would convince them beyond any doubt of catastrophic man-made global warming reality?

Were hidden subliminal messages embedded in emails or pdf formatted pages or pages of Science Magazine?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114867v1

Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere
B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, C. Mears, F. J. Wentz, S. A. Klein, D. J. Seidel, K. E. Taylor, P. W. Thorne, M. F. Wehner, P. J. Gleckler, J. S. Boyle, W. D. Collins, K. W. Dixon, C. Doutriaux, M. Free, Q. Fu, J. E. Hansen, G. S. Jones, R. Ruedy, T. R. Karl, J. R. Lanzante, G. A. Meehl, V. Ramaswamy, G. Russell, and G. A. Schmidt
Science 2 September 2005 309: 1551-1556; published online 11 August 2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1114867] (in Reports)

Global Warming Science: An Annotated Bibliography
A summary of recent findings on the changing global climate.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2005.asp

Satellite and Surface Temperature Records Reconciled
C.A. Mears and F.J. Wentz, Science
(August 11, 2005)
A. Revkin, "Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data," New York Times
(August 12, 2005)

A puzzling discrepancy among different approaches to measuring global warming was resolved when scientists discovered an error in previous calculations used to correct satellite temperature readings. Global warming naysayers had long pointed to satellite-based temperature measurements published by two scientists at the University of Alabama as evidence that there was great uncertainty about global warming. These measurements appeared to show that the earth's atmosphere was warming far more slowly than the earth's surface, contrary to the expectations of climate scientists and the predictions of climate models used to forecast the effects of increases in heat-trapping pollution. Scientists at Remote Sensing Systems reanalyzed the raw satellite data and found that the lower atmosphere is actually warming slightly faster than the surface, in agreement with theory and models. These scientists found that the previous analysis of the satellite data had inaccurately corrected for changes in the satellites' measurement time resulting from the decay of their orbit. The diurnal temperature cycle of warmer temperatures during the day and cooler temperatures at night means that a gradual change in measurement time introduces a spurious temperature trend that must be removed from the data. The University of Alabama scientists have now acknowledged that they made a mistake and have adjusted their data series, making it much more in line with other results...

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience2005.asp

In his piece, Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else. Ronald Bailey September 22, 2006, Bailey reveals:

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end...

How many other skeptics read Science Magazine that day?

How many others are willing to place their trust in data which is corrected and adjusted ... making it much more in line with other results.

Whew, we don't have access online The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature
Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz
Science 2 September 2005 309: 1548-1551; published online 11 August 2005 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1114772] (in Reports)
, those embedded subliminal messages won't work on us...

Mentions a summit somebody else attended prior to August 2005

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/7/41932/19363

Ah ha, 16TH GLOBAL WARMING INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXPO (GWXVI), April 19-21, 2005, New York, NY

http://www.eintoday.com/newsletter/samples/gwn_sample.htm

Was Ronald Bailey in attendance??

Since August 11, 2005, Bailey - the convert - writes

Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey | May 3, 2006, 10:44am

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just released a report that looks at the various global temperature data sets and finds that they are now all "consistent" with man-made global warming. The chief cause is the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming skeptics (and I was definitely one of them) have cited the findings of John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who have produced a temperature series based on satellite measurements since 1979. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the UAH data series saw little or no warming and its findings were bolstered by separate weather balloon data that also found little warming. In the past few years corrections made to the data sets have boosted average global temperatures in both.

NOAA's new report takes a look at all of the data sets and finds that they all point toward a trend of increasing average warmth:...

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Exxon secrets Fact Sheet on Bailey

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11

Bailey explains his past thinking and admits he was wrong about global warming:

Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else

Ronald Bailey | September 22, 2006

...In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."

So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."

Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.

Just to bring my intellectual journey in reporting and opining about the global warming issue up to date, I reviewed former vice-president Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for Reason. I agreed that Gore has "won the climate debate" and that "on balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science" though I argued he exaggerates just how bad future global warming is likely to be. However, I agree that the balance of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that humanity is contributing to global warming chiefly by means of loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels...

CONTINUED

So I didn't get any stacks of $20 dollar bills in brown paper bags from ExxonMobil (don't believe any photoshopped pictures you may see to the contrary). I also don't think that I was duped by paid-off scientists. Except for climatologist Robert Balling, as the embedded links above show, the sleuths at Exxonsecrets have uncovered no payments to the scientists I chiefly relied upon in my reporting over the years. But was I too skeptical, demanding too much evidence or ignoring evidence that cut against what I wanted to believe? Perhaps. In hindsight I can only plead that there is no magic formula for deciding when enough evidence has accumulated that a fair-minded person must change his or her mind on a controversial scientific issue. With regard to global warming it finally did for me in the last year. That was far too late for many and still too early for others. However, I can't resist pointing out that I became a "convert" on global warming nearly a year before some other prominent journalistic skeptics such as Gregg Easterbrook and Michael Shermer changed their minds.
So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong. Looking to the future, I can't promise that my reporting will always be right (no reporter can, but I will strive to make it so), but my reporting has always been honest and I promise that it always will be.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36811.html

Published on 23 May 2006 by EB. Archived on 23 May 2006. Tide turns on global warming by Staff

Flipped Positions, too, and when?

Finally Feeling the Heat Greg Easterbrook, NY Times (Op-Ed)
(24 May 2006)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24easterbrook.html?ex=1306123200&en=a4df3b808f1716da&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


[Jonathan Adler, September 23, 2006 at 6:33pm]
Ron Bailey Comes Clean:
Science writer Ronald Bailey, a longtime skeptic about whether global warming presents an apocalyptic threat, responds to charges that he and other climate "skeptics" are nothing more than paid stooges for evil corporations...

http://volokh.com/posts/1159050814.shtml

Skeptics flip

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/23/215030/928

Bailey 2006

Global Warming Solutions
Markets, taxes, or nothing at all?

Ronald Bailey | December 15, 2006

Assume man-made global warming is a big, bad problem. Let's try some thought experiments concerning what, if anything, should be done about it.

One "solution" might be recognizing, at least, that there is nothing to be done about it. One might argue that for the sake of lifting billions of poor people out of abject poverty humanity must continue to burn cheap oil and coal to fuel economic growth in this century. One unavoidable side effect is that this will increase the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus boost global average temperatures by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. People three generations hence will just have to adapt to this increase. Fortunately because of the wealth produced by burning fossil fuels, average incomes will have increased about sevenfold and so they will have the resources to do so. In addition, wealth may enable them to develop new low pollution energy technologies...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117271.html

Pay It Forward What can carbon markets do for economic development? Ronald Bailey | November 15, 2006

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116751.html

"Climate Change Tourists" Go Home! The Nairobi global warming conference grinds to an end Ronald Bailey | November 17, 2006

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116805.html

Bailey 2005

Betting on Climate Change It's time to put up or shut up Ronald Bailey | June 8, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html

The Kyoto Protocol Launches! But Will it Matter? Ronald Bailey | February 16, 2005

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34958.html

Bailey 2004

Two Sides to Global Warming
Is it proven fact, or just conventional wisdom?
Ronald Bailey | November 10, 2004

...So is dangerous rapid global warming merely the new conventional wisdom—or a credible forecast of our climatic future? There's plenty of evidence for both positions, and I'll keep reporting the data and the controversy...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html

Discussion

November 12, 2004

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/11/two_sides_to_gl.html
http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/

Discussions

Converts

As CT commenters pointed out on my last post, there’s a rush of former sceptics announcing their change of views on global warming. Here’s Gregg Easterbrook and John Tierney. Ron Bailey, who changed his view on the science last year, has now taken the next step, observing that the economic costs of Kyoto are likely to be modest

...

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/26/more-conversions-on-global-warming/

Still after the foregoing...

More Evidence Against Manmade Global Warming

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=environment&Number=268644&page=11&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=2&vc=1

also see links on the post: State of Fear Exposes Truth of Deception

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2006/12/state-of-fear-exposes-truth-of.html

Search for more Ronald Bailey articles on global warming before and after his conversion...

Year 2000

Rush to Judgment Ronald Bailey | April 2000

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27654.html

Discussion Hit & Run (Reason Magazine) Bailey

Excerpts:

uncle sam | May 3, 2006, 12:30pm | #

Given that the climate has been warming for hundreds of years, the lack of change indicated by satellite measurements would seem anomalous.

What I want to know is how they can shown how much of the recent warming is manmade. I am not impressed with statements like "probably manmade" or, we can't imagine any other reason for it" etc.

Sam | May 4, 2006, 1:24pm | #

Also, http://www.realclimate.org/ is a good site run by real climatologists explainging or rebutting climate news and claims...


joshua corning | May 4, 2006, 4:43pm | #

Also, http://www.realclimate.org/ is a good site run by real climatologists explainging or rebutting climate news and claims.

to bad realclimate has been proven dead wrong on every claim it has made on multi proxy cliamte studies...

see here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

More

GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE: HAS ANYTHING CHANGED?

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060702-5.htm


No-No No-No of Journalistic integrity

Betting on Climate Change
It's time to put up or shut up Ronald Bailey | June 8, 2005


* This article has been corrected. An erroneous reference to William M Connolley has been removed. (Return to the corrected portion.)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html

Global Warming Data Sets Reconciled Ronald Bailey | May 3, 2006, 10:44am

Excerpts:

D.A. Ridgely | May 3, 2006, 12:03pm

Mr. Bailey:

Is your "was" which has so many here suddenly slack jawed meant to suggest you are no longer skeptical about a global warming trend or that it is in some significant measure man-made?

Dave W. | May 3, 2006, 12:16pm

T.:

Do you really believe that all that subtle stuff about interpretation of scientific data was what led Bailey to being (initially) on the wrong side of the global warming divide?


Ron Bailey | May 3, 2006, 1:11pm

Mr. Ridgely: Both--the current evidence points to a relatively small upward trend in global average temperatures and that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for at least a portion of that trend.

Dave W:

Do you really believe that all that subtle stuff about interpretation of scientific data was what led Bailey to being (initially) on the wrong side of the global warming divide?

Actually that's exactly what happened. I've been reporting on and talking with climate scientists and actualy reading long IPCC reports for over 20 years. However, it is true that my reporting on decades of environmentalist scares (overpopulation, synthetic chemical cancer epidemics, biotech run amok) is what inclined me toward the skeptical camp in the first place. All I asked for was evidence and I am now persuaded--perhaps not soon enough for you, but I don't care what you think.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/113722.html

Brother, Can You Spare 22 Terawatts? Big ideas for the future of energy Ronald Bailey | November 24, 2006

...This means that the world will need an additional 15-22 TW of energy over the current base of 13.5 TW.

So where will the extra energy come from? Relying on figures from the World Energy Assessment by the United Nations Development Program, Nocera looks at the maximum amounts of power that various non-fossil fuel sources might supply. Biomass could supply 7-10 TW of energy, but that is the equivalent of harvesting all current crops solely for energy. Nuclear could produce 8 TW which implies building 8000 new reactors over the 45 years at a rate of one new plant every two days. Wind would generate 2.1 TW if every site on the globe with class 3 winds or greater were occupied with windmills. Winds at a class 3 site blow at 11.5 miles per hour at 33 feet above the ground. And hydro-power could produce 0.7-2 TW if dams were placed on every untapped river on the earth. Nocera concludes, "The message is clear. The additional energy we need in 2050 over the current 13.5 TW base, is simply not attainable from long discussed sources—the global appetite for energy is simply too great."

Burning coal, gas, and oil could fuel the world in 2050, but the carbon dioxide produced by these fossil fuels would have somehow to be captured and sequestered (CCS) underground in order to prevent it from being vented into the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming. Some CCS pilot projects have been launched but they are not cheap and they are far from proven.

Given the magnitude of the problem of fueling the future with carbon-neutral energy, Nocera argues that the only real alternative for carbon-neutral energy production is some form of solar power. More energy from sunlight strikes the Earth in one hour than humanity uses in a year. But converting sunlight into energy useful to people is a huge unsolved technological problem. In 2000, author Richard Rhodes and nuclear engineer Denis Beller calculated that using current solar power technologies to construct a global solar-energy system would consume at least 20 percent of the world's known iron resources, take a century to build and cover a half-million square miles. Clearly a lot of technological innovation needs to take place before solar becomes an option for fueling the world.

The challenge of supplying the world with carbon neutral energy has a lot of people calling for the launching of a "Manhattan Project" or "Apollo Project." What they mean is that the Federal government should dramatically boost research and development spending for novel energy technologies...

...Maybe Nocera is right that solar power is the way to go, but history teaches us to scrap the Apollo Project model for technology R&D. Federal bureaucrats are simply not smart enough to pick winning energy technologies. Instead, eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market. No one knows now how humanity will fuel the 21st century, but Apollo and Manhattan Project-style Federal energy research projects will prove to be a huge waste of time, money and talent.

Disclosure: I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil stock. So what!

http://www.reason.com/news/show/116887.html

Post Script to Net the Truth Online Post

Find out which R&D technologies Bailey invests in, has invested in since August 11, 2005,and invest in those...

For more information on this issue use the search feature on this site located at the top left corner

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=global+warming