Another Monckton Climate Change Fraud

Environment • Views: 4,696

Christopher Monckton, who last appeared at LGF in July 2008 when he claimed to have a peer reviewed paper showing that the Earth’s climate sensitivity had been vastly overstated (a claim that turned out to be false), has been caught out again, deliberately manipulating data to claim that IPCC projections of CO2 emissions were wrong.

Turns out the projections weren’t wrong at all; Monckton fabricated graphs with false and cherry-picked data in order to make his claims. RealClimate has details on the fakery.

Jump to bottom

707 comments
1 Mithrax  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:52:23pm

Sigh.

It's hard enough getting to the bottom of any climate change discussion without people faking, manipulating, or omitting.

What in the hell happened to truth in science?

2 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:53:07pm

Follow the money. This heating/cooling thing isn't new.

3 Desert Dog  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:53:17pm

re: #1 Mithrax

Sigh.

It's hard enough getting to the bottom of any climate change discussion without people faking, manipulating, or omitting.

What in the hell happened to truth in science?

On both sides of that issue

4 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:53:26pm

I like warm.

5 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:54:10pm

Does this mean we're all still going to die soon?

inductive vs. deductive; learn it, live it.

6 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:54:16pm

The last thing this debate needs is fake data.

7 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:54:23pm

re: #4 Racer X

I like warm.

TMI

8 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:55:13pm

I just want to pays some more taxes. Who's with me?

9 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:56:12pm

re: #8 Cannadian Club Akbar

I just want to pays some more taxes. Who's with me?

Got a fever?

10 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:57:43pm

Ya want hot? Climb on top of a CAT 365 backhoe in the middle of August after it has been running for 5 hours. In Florida.

11 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 3:58:30pm
12 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:01:41pm

re: #2 cannadian club akbar

Follow the money. This heating/cooling thing isn't new.

Also, it's a plot to destroy capitalism, if the earth's temperature went up ten degrees that wouldn't hurt anything, and Al Gore is a dummy with a private jet. Anything else?

//

13 quickslow87  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:02:24pm

Facts need to be correctly stated regardless of whether they support a view or not.

14 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:02:44pm

I. for one, look forward to a bracing round of climate change. Soon, we'll be sampling Scotland's finest clarets. I anticipate some fine merlots from Norway, while I'm sure Sweden will rise to the challenge with some delicate pinot noirs.

15 Mithrax  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:04:19pm

re: #14 calcajun

I. for one, look forward to a bracing round of climate change. Soon, we'll be sampling Scotland's finest clarets. I anticipate some fine merlots from Norway, while I'm sure Sweden will rise to the challenge with some delicate pinot noirs.

And the Scandinavian countries won't win so many medals at the winter olympics! :P

16 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:04:44pm

The one thing that is getting me to back off questioning climate change is the number of liars trying to push me around attempting to recruit my support. People like the Discovery Institute shills latching onto this, and this Monckton person- charlatans, all of them.

The truth doesn't need such allies.

17 researchok  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:04:58pm

A look at the USDA growing maps over the last few decades is the best indicator of climate change on the North American continent.

Climate change is undeniably real. The real debates are over the cause(s).

18 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:05:42pm

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

Also, it's a plot to destroy capitalism, if the earth's temperature went up ten degrees that wouldn't hurt anything, and Al Gore is a dummy with a private jet. Anything else?

//

If the oceans rise, we're both fucked.

19 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:05:45pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

Please, tell that to Hansen.

20 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:06:35pm

There was a leaked memo from the Office of Management and Budget making the news today I haven't digested it yet... anybody got a take on it?

21 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:06:42pm

re: #15 Mithrax

What "Winter" Olympics?

22 Mithrax  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:07:28pm

re: #21 calcajun

What "Winter" Olympics?

Exactly! So it'll be two events, hockey and curling, and we all know Canada wins at both of those :)

23 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:07:50pm

I don't know about you folks, but I would enjoy warmer weather here in the north. 6 month cold seasons are great if you are into skiing, snowmobiling, or ice fishing. Since I do none of the above.....

24 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:07:58pm
25 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:08:01pm

re: #16 Sharmuta

The one thing that is getting me to back off questioning climate change is the number of liars trying to push me around attempting to recruit my support. People like the Discovery Institute shills latching onto this, and this Monckton person- charlatans, all of them.

The truth doesn't need such allies.

It should be studied, but it drives me nuts when the liars insist on us agreeing that either conclusion has been proven.

26 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:08:05pm

re: #1 Mithrax

Sigh.

It's hard enough getting to the bottom of any climate change discussion without people faking, manipulating, or omitting.

What in the hell happened to truth in science?

The age of truth is over. We're now in the age of 0bama!

27 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:08:39pm

Monckton is a notorious media whore, whose distortions (cherry picking and magical curve fitting) about climatology are just part of the whole sordid package.

When last he was before Congress (remember the Shimkus video?), Monckton addressed Congress with a salutation suggesting he was from the British Parliamant, a favorite ploy of his, though he is by no means a member of the House of Lords.

Then there is that whole flap about quarantining people with AIDS.

And so on. A thorough check of Monckton's background reveals a slimy fellow indeed.

And yet... and yet, he is the GOP's star witness on climate change, which at the last Congressional hearing the Democrats refused to allow any more of Monckton's nonsense, causing the right-wing to ventilate about something or other...

28 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:08:59pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

The last thing this debate needs is fake data.

No disagreement there. The key element being that there is still a debate.

29 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:09:11pm

Climate change schlimate change, it's damn turtles wandering off the divine course through the heavens!

/////

30 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:09:37pm

re: #18 Cannadian Club Akbar

If the oceans rise, we're both fucked.

why can't you swim?

31 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:09:46pm

re: #25 debutaunt

It should be studied, but it drives me nuts when the liars insist on us agreeing that either conclusion has been proven.

The alarmist wing of the charlatans are just as troubling.

32 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:10:02pm

I'd say that since the earth has had an atmosphere and a fluid surface, the climate has changed constantly. So "climate change" is a no-brainer. I heard Lomberg speak last week, however. He says that it would take approximately seventy-five to one hundred years of extreme economic privation and negative cost-benefit spending to reduce the earth's temperature one half degree centigrade, assuming that the warming trend is caused by human activity.

Her also says that in cost-benefit terms, that money can be better spent elsewhere.

33 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:10:13pm

I'll never understand people who try to pass off fraudulent data. They've got to know they'll get caught, discredit their own movement, destroy their career and become a laughingstock. It must be a unique combination of stupidity and arrogance.

34 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:10:56pm

re: #11 taxfreekiller

I like cold in the winter, and warm to hot in the summer.

It takes a dry cool May to make over 50 bushels of wheat per acer dry land in Texas.

Chaco Canyon has an old sun/moon record keeping rock.

this is not new
old ones of the Apache knew things too

They certainly did. And I think I have seen that rock you mention in one of my trips there, certainly I've seen a picture of it in one of my many books on the subject.

We don't give our ancestors enough credit, especially the people that were native to this land here.

35 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:11:52pm

Funny how global warming conferences get snowed out or it is the "coldest day on record."

36 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:12:00pm

Hey JUSTAHOUSEWIFE, since you down dinged this thread, why don't you jump in here and give us your opinion on the subject, or is that too much to ask?

37 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:12:20pm

re: #33 doppelganglander

I'll never understand people who try to pass off fraudulent data. They've got to know they'll get caught, discredit their own movement, destroy their career and become a laughingstock. It must be a unique combination of stupidity and arrogance.

The point is that their audience doesn't care if the information is fake. Just like the Disco Institute or Mikey Moore; their audiences don't really care what's true.

38 Truck Monkey  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:12:22pm

re: #5 calcajun

Does this mean we're all still going to die soon?

inductive vs. deductive; learn it, live it.

What do you mean soon.....

39 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:13:02pm

Will Take a second look at Monckton - so far he seems to have documented better than former VP Gore. If it turns out to be "Gore and the Whore" - WOW!
That is all.

-S

40 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:13:05pm

re: #36 Walter L. Newton

Hey JUSTAHOUSEWIFE, since you down dinged this thread, why don't you jump in here and give us your opinion on the subject, or is that too much to ask?

Maybe she is doing the dishes?

41 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:13:19pm

re: #34 Walter L. Newton

They certainly did. And I think I have seen that rock you mention in one of my trips there, certainly I've seen a picture of it in one of my many books on the subject.

We don't give our ancestors enough credit, especially the people that were native to this land here.

I just heard a weather report this morning warning of 'apache stretch of fog along I-5'...
/

42 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:13:35pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

The point is that their audience doesn't care if the information is fake. Just like the Disco Institute or Mikey Moore; their audiences don't really care what's true.

But they must want to do more than preach to the converted. They're clearly trying to influence the debate, but all they do is beclown themselves. How on earth do they think that's going to be effective?

43 Mithrax  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:13:52pm

re: #41 LGoPs

I just heard a weather report this morning warning of 'apache stretch of fog along I-5'...
/

Oh lordy, you should get Sioux-ed for that one.

44 Cannadian Club Akbar  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:13:53pm

re: #30 Nevergiveup

why can't you swim?

" Learn to swim"-----TOOL And yes, I know it's not the name of the song...

45 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:14:25pm

re: #43 Mithrax

Oh lordy, you should get Sioux-ed for that one.

Beat me to it. Hopi do better next time.

46 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:14:28pm

BTW, in Monckton's last communique (published) to his favorite suck-up (Anthony Watts), Monckton defends his original idea of compulsory quarantining of those with AIDS.

47 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:14:52pm

re: #29 jcm

Climate change schlimate change, it's damn turtles wandering off the divine course through the heavens!

/////

I sea you're snapping because they won't stay in the box.

/duck

48 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:15:03pm

re: #43 Mithrax

Oh lordy, you should get Sioux-ed for that one.

I Haida pun threads!

49 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:15:30pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

The point is that their audience doesn't care if the information is fake. Just like the Disco Institute or Mikey Moore; their audiences don't really care what's true.

Precisely.

50 Mithrax  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:15:52pm

re: #48 jcm

I Haida pun threads!

Sooner or later, Charles is gonna Commanche all puns to stop.

51 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:15:54pm

re: #43 Mithrax

Oh lordy, you should get Sioux-ed for that one.

that thought gives me the Creeps

52 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:16:47pm

re: #45 doppelganglander

Beat me to it. Hopi do better next time.

Why don't Ute's jsut drop it. :)

53 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:16:56pm

re: #46 freetoken

BTW, in Monckton's last communique (published) to his favorite suck-up (Anthony Watts), Monckton defends his original idea of compulsory quarantining of those with AIDS.

freetoken -

What does AIDS have to do with the Climate Debate - Pray Tell? AIDS patients are quarantined in many nations - INCLUYE CUBA!

-S-

54 hopperandadropper  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:01pm

Well, the AGW group are masters of cherry picking and unreliable extrapolation. They still present the great "hockey stick" graph as true and meaningful, even though it has been thoroughly debunked (including a review by an expert statistical panel of the National Academy of Sciences). They love to show things in terms of changes since 1979, which of course is a totally arbitrary starting point that just happens to fall at the end of a significant cooling period.

The truth is that significant warming, whatever the cause, hasn't happened over the past decade. The truth is that sea ice in the Arctic is near normal for this time of year (again, using that arbitrary 1979 starting point to calculate the average) and higher than it has been for years. The truth is that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is well above average for this time of year. Check the web site Cryosphere Today, operated by the U of Illinois, for the sea ice data. These facts all run directly counter to the predictions (and much of the current rhetoric) of the AGW crowd, but facts don't matter when you're talking about a religion.

55 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:02pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

The point is that their audience doesn't care if the information is fake. Just like the Disco Institute or Mikey Moore; their audiences don't really care what's true.

It is a sorry time when reality is unimportant.

56 solomonpanting  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:06pm

Stop all your Crowin'.

57 DEZes  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:20pm

I am Cheyenne away from these puns.

58 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:32pm

re: #38 Truck Monkey

Eh? Sooner in grisly "manbearpig" fashion in a rather warm and arid "Mad Max" world rather than of old age.

59 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:33pm

Lomberg's project on setting priorities for improving the quality of life globally is called the Copenhagen Consensus Conference. Global warming is considered as a global problem among several others. Here's a link about it:

[Link: www.reason.com...]

"So what proposed solutions are at the bottom of the list? At number 30, the lowest priority is a proposal to mitigate man-made global warming by cutting the emissions of greenhouse gases. This ranking caused some consternation among the European journalists at the press conference. Nobelist and University of Maryland economist Thomas Schelling noted that part of the reason for the low ranking is that spending $75 billion on cutting greenhouses gases would achieve almost nothing. In fact, the climate change analysis presented to the panel found that spending $800 billion until 2100 would yield just $685 billion in climate change benefits.

Noting that he has been concerned about climate change for 30 years, Schelling argued that tacking climate change will take public policy responses such as carbon taxes to address the issue. Schelling added, "The best defense against climate change in the developing countries is going to be their own development." He explained that funding education to create a literate labor force boosts the productivity of a country enabling economic growth. Economic growth produces wealth that helps people address and adapt to the problems caused by climate change. Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, pointed out that funding research and development of low-carbon energy technologies is ranked at a respectable number 14 out of the 30 solutions considered."

60 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:17:41pm

re: #50 Mithrax

Sooner or later, Charles is gonna Commanche all puns to stop.

Inuit.

61 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:18:04pm

re: #48 jcm

I Haida pun threads!

Wow Huron the money with that one!

62 researchok  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:18:13pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

Yup- it's a validation of their fantasies and projections.

Truth and reality have nothing to do with it.

In a way, it's a kind of cognitive dissonance. For example, every smoker knows that the habit is destructive, but they continue to smoke. Get some whackjob to say smoking really isn't unhealthy and they latch on to that, knowing full well it's bunk.

More magical thinking.

63 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:18:54pm

re: #57 DEZes

I am Cheyenne away from these puns.

That was as swet as creme Brule

64 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:19:03pm

re: #41 LGoPs

I just heard a weather report this morning warning of 'apache stretch of fog along I-5'...
/

Fer tule?

65 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:19:20pm

re: #60 Cato the Elder

Inuit.

Why, as long as we don't deviate from the Seminole truth of the matter?

66 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:19:44pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

The point is that their audience doesn't care if the information is fake. Just like the Disco Institute or Mikey Moore; their audiences don't really care what's true.

People WANT propaganda now- that's all the rage. Who gives a damn about the truth? Give me what I need to support my preconceptions. To support my ignorance. It disgusts me.

You really need look no further than the "Politically Incorrect Guide" books. Scroll down and look at them all. The one on Intelligent Design and Darwin is a DI Fellow. The guy who wrote the science book is an AIDS denialist. Historical revisionism on the Founding, the Civil war and look who else is on that list! Our friend robert.

Charles is right when he says there is a push to move the right further right.

67 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:19:46pm

re: #47 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I sea you're snapping because they won't stay in the box.

/duck

Oh, trying to tortoise me with puns I Sea.

68 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:19:46pm

Looking at these Indian tribe puns, and thinking back to the fish puns on the last thread, I'm inclined to stay up here on my Nez Perch, high above the fray

69 Truck Monkey  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:19:55pm

re: #43 Mithrax

Oh lordy, you should get Sioux-ed for that one.

That makes me want to arapahoe!

70 uptight  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:20:08pm

The people peddling the climate change hysteria are either outright lefties or watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside).

Perhaps it's just convenient that the only things they suggest mankind can do to stop the weatherpocalypse will wind back our civilisation to a level reminiscent of cold war era Albania.

A means to an end. Mankind has always fretted about the weather. Neolithic man worshipped the elements out of fear. God told Noah to build an arc and then flooded the world. In modern times, we learned that radio waves and nuclear energy would screw up the weather. In recent years we've had the scares about global cooling and global warming.

Now the left can use "climate change" fears to muscle in an end to globalisation, punish big industries and stop you and I using any means of transport that doesn't involve two wheels, sweat and lycra.

Sorry - I don't buy it. They have an agenda.

If it looks like a commie plot and sounds like a commie plot, I'm guessing it is.

Either way, there's precious little mankind can do to affect this planet. If we totally shut down and lived in caves, C02 emissions would still be dominated by algae, volcanoes and cow farts.

This planet has existed for countless years and will exist for countless more. Mankind is a blip in its history and I'm not going to do a god-dammned thing to perpetuate this Socialism-by-stealth scheme.

Lizards - leave your lights on, make unnecessary journeys and get yourself some outdoor aircon. Screw the bastards.

71 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:20:25pm

re: #42 doppelganglander

How on earth do they think that's going to be effective?


I don't know. People delude themselves.

72 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:20:28pm

Mickey Mouse was heartbroken when his friend told him about his wife's deceit. He said "Miniconjou"....

Nyuk, nyuk

73 solomonpanting  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:20:33pm

What's all the big Hoopa about?

74 DEZes  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:21:06pm

re: #63 LGoPs

That was as swet as creme Brule

Eno, there is this Chickasaw that I wanna ask out.

75 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:21:45pm

re: #68 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Looking at these Indian tribe puns, and thinking back to the fish puns on the last thread, I'm inclined to stay up here on my Nez Perch, high above the fray

I will pun no more, forever!
Chief Joesphun.

76 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:22:19pm

re: #66 Sharmuta

Some of those really give me the creeps.....

The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again)


Ugh.

77 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:22:39pm

re: #68 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Looking at these Indian tribe puns, and thinking back to the fish puns on the last thread, I'm inclined to stay up here on my Nez Perch, high above the fray

Well, just don't sit there Ogallala-ing us--come on down and join in!

78 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:22:53pm

the climate itself is the victim here...jus sayin

79 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:23:01pm

Another Thought -

Today on NRO, Steve Heyward stated that if the US were generating electricity from Nuclear Plants, to the same percentage as FRANCE, we would be WELL UNDER the Kyoto Targets and could have signed the Treaty, and laughed at the rest of the World as to "Greenhouse Gases."
Discussion?

-S-

80 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:23:12pm

I'm a climate change skeptic, but I also think the issue must be addressed in the context of many global issues. If Monckton is dishonest, then he hurts the cause of climate change skepticism. As a skeptic, I don't doubt the scientific evidence that climate is changing. I doubt that human activity causes the changes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the changes.

And if we must confront the changes, causality aside, I prefer Lomberg's approach. Let's prioritize solutions rationally, and not emotionally.

81 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:23:18pm

re: #70 uptight

So, a nice long post that had nothing to do with the article linked to at the top of this thread. How about explaining why Monckton insists on outright lying about the data.

Is this any better than what you claim the left is doing?

82 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:23:35pm

re: #71 Killgore Trout

I don't know. People delude themselves.

The audiences get satisfaction.
The gratification is more important than anything else.

/including Truth

83 A Kiwi Infidel  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:24:09pm

re: #14 calcajun

I. for one, look forward to a bracing round of climate change. Soon, we'll be sampling Scotland's finest clarets. I anticipate some fine merlots from Norway, while I'm sure Sweden will rise to the challenge with some delicate pinot noirs.

Wont happen, the mullahs wont allow it!

84 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:24:13pm

re: #75 jcm

I will pun no more, forever!
Chief Joesphun.

*groan*

85 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:24:40pm

re: #53 Dr. Shalit

Since the title of this thread starts off with Monckton, his extreme beliefs on other subjects, in this case related to medicine and national health policies, are indeed relevant.

86 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:24:47pm

CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS =

CUT CHEMICAL GAS NONSENSE
SCIENCE THUG/CON/SALESMAN
TEACHING SCAM. CLUES? NONE.

87 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:25:13pm

re: #77 calcajun

Well, just don't sit there Ogallala-ing us--come on down and join in!

What's that?
You're Eskimo participation from me?

88 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:25:13pm

re: #50 Mithrax

"Why was I arrested? Arapaho."

Death to all punsters!

89 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:25:31pm

re: #86 gmsc

CLIMATE CHANGE CONSENSUS =

CUT CHEMICAL GAS NONSENSE
SCIENCE THUG/CON/SALESMAN
TEACHING SCAMS. CLUES? NONE.

PIMF

90 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:26:33pm

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.

91 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:26:35pm

re: #76 Killgore Trout

Creepy is a good word for it.

92 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:26:42pm

re: #75 jcm

I will pun no more, forever!
Chief Joesphun.

That really Sauks.......

93 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:27:01pm

the climate change brokers have severely fucked up this issue with me....it is a HUGE money maker...weather pimps, I don't trust any of them anymore and why should I?

94 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:27:05pm

re: #86 gmsc

Are you doing your tfk impression?

95 A Kiwi Infidel  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:27:53pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.


You are in deep shit, you have strayed off topic!

96 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:28:08pm

re: #77 calcajun

Well, just don't sit there Ogallala-ing us--come on down and join in!

Stop Yanktoning my chain.......

97 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:28:53pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.

*WHACK*

98 UFO TOFU  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:08pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

Who are you, and what have you done with Kilgore?

99 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:10pm

re: #84 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*groan*

You really know how to hurt a guy!

;-P

100 wrenchwench  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:10pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.

Restore it with some--ruin it with others.

You can't please all the people all the time.

101 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:13pm

re: #97 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*WHACK*

:D ... teasing

102 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:24pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.

Thank goodness, now you can get on with your life. You will find every day full of new experiences, free of Ron Paul, free of the weight of your addiction to the Tea Parties.

Free, yes free at last.

103 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:25pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.

related?...few here would disagree...just keep doing what you do

104 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:30pm

I will believe when the cheerleaders for AGW begin to ACT like there is really AGW.

So far this issue is way too politicized from both sides, and one side is making money off your fears.

105 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:29:49pm

re: #80 quickjustice

I'm a climate change skeptic, but I also think the issue must be addressed in the context of many global issues. If Monckton is dishonest, then he hurts the cause of climate change skepticism. As a skeptic, I don't doubt the scientific evidence that climate is changing. I doubt that human activity causes the changes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about the changes.

And if we must confront the changes, causality aside, I prefer Lomberg's approach. Let's prioritize solutions rationally, and not emotionally.

quickustice -

As the dominant species on Earth, I am sure that we cause SOME CHANGE.
That said, the questions become:

1. How Much?

2. Does it Matter?

3. IF it DOES MATTER - What Can We Do About It?

4. Might the CURE be WORSE than the DISEASE, at least to our Species?

To me - those are the real questions.

-S-

106 Flyers1974  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:30:08pm

re: #79 Dr. Shalit

Very interesting quote you have there. Who is really against nuclear power these days? I know the left used to be against nuclear in the 1970's but haven't heard the issue debated much as of late. Almost a solution too good to be true. I wonder if it is the cost of building the plants that have taken the issue off the table (if I'm correct in thinking the nuclear option has largely disappeared.)

107 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:30:11pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

Try saying that with a straight face.

108 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:30:22pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

You didn't take a plane ride, did you? A sudden flash, check the date on your computer.

109 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:30:33pm

re: #99 jcm

You really know how to hurt a guy!

;-P

It was a compliment.

/well ... uh ... er ... *whistling, ambling away innocently* ... :D

110 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:31:02pm

Alaska's Hubbard Glacier is advancing 7 feet per day - That must be due to global warming.

111 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:31:12pm

re: #66 Sharmuta

People WANT propaganda now- that's all the rage. Who gives a damn about the truth? Give me what I need to support my preconceptions. To support my ignorance. It disgusts me.

You really need look no further than the "Politically Incorrect Guide" books. Scroll down and look at them all. The one on Intelligent Design and Darwin is a DI Fellow. The guy who wrote the science book is an AIDS denialist. Historical revisionism on the Founding, the Civil war and look who else is on that list! Our friend robert.

Charles is right when he says there is a push to move the right further right.

The Politically Incorrect Pig-Ignorant Guide to Science:

In the latest installment of the bestselling Politically Incorrect Pig-Ignorant Guide™ series, American Spectator editor Tom Bethell takes on the controversies of science spanning evolution, cloning, global warming, stem cell research, and more. The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Science helps you tune up your baloney detector by exposing the liberal and anti-religious propaganda we’re being fed by textbooks, college professors and the mainstream new media in the name of science.

Once again, Robert Spencer finds himself in the best of company.

His own little PIG is, I believe, his bestselling book of all. Written for people who know what they think before they even pick up the book.

112 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:31:29pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

In an attempt the restore my image with the Lizard Nation I'm proud to announce that despite the overwhelming evidence that the Tea Parties are a Paulian operation I hereby declare that Ron Paul, his followers and ideas are in no way related to the Tea Parties.

Nottoway are you changing your tune at that this point.

113 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:32:13pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

Stick to your guns. I may not always agree with you, but you have my respect because you keep both sides honest.

114 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:32:30pm

re: #106 Flyers1974

Very interesting quote you have there. Who is really against nuclear power these days? I know the left used to be against nuclear in the 1970's but haven't heard the issue debated much as of late. Almost a solution too good to be true. I wonder if it is the cost of building the plants that have taken the issue off the table (if I'm correct in thinking the nuclear option has largely disappeared.)

Really... Obama's policy statement on nuclear, which is the same as it's been for 30 years with the left. There for, nothing new, and nothing will go forward.

"Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants."

[Link: blogs.physicstoday.org...]

115 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:32:52pm

re: #90 Killgore Trout

I've seen Paulians lurking at the fringe of Tea Party protests. I've met the organizers in NYC, and I've heard the speakers, who included Newt Gingrich. The messages were anti-bailout, anti-debt, anti-tax increase, and mainstream. At this point, I see no evidence that the Paulians are pulling all of the strings. They are trying to siphon off some protesters to their own Paulian-controlled events.

This is a nascent movement with many participants from many sources. Thanks to Charles, my antennae are out, looking for Paulian manipulation. I don't see it in NYC so far. I've warned libertarians on my blog to dump Ron Paul. I'll keep repeating that message.

116 wrenchwench  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:32:59pm

re: #112 jcm

Nottoway are you changing your tune at that this point.

He's trying Tulalip service on the opposition.

117 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:33:01pm

I remember back in the days. 70's to the early 90's shivering in the cold, shoveling all that heavy white stuff in the middle of winter. Listening to my coats crackle with the extreme cold late at night. Wearing long johns to school and generally freezing my ass off. We have had a few winters like that, but nothing like it was. So tell me how is that better then the so called global warming? It might still be happening, and if it is where's the down side?

118 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:33:02pm

re: #106 Flyers1974

Very interesting quote you have there. Who is really against nuclear power these days? I know the left used to be against nuclear in the 1970's but haven't heard the issue debated much as of late. Almost a solution too good to be true. I wonder if it is the cost of building the plants that have taken the issue off the table (if I'm correct in thinking the nuclear option has largely disappeared.)

Been hiding somewhere? The Democratic Party, The Present President, the Left, The Far Left, The Progressives are all against Nuclear Energy.

119 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:33:09pm

re: #110 gmsc

Alaska's Hubbard Glacier is advancing 7 feet per day - That must be due to global warming.

It's melting, sliding fast.

120 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:33:25pm

re: #105 Dr. Shalit

I was on the far eastern tip of the island of Java in Indonesia. There was no way there except by boat. Walking the beach, I encountered man made pollution.
We do affect the planet. We need to clean up our messes. But the Carbon tax scam is all about power.

121 jantjepietje  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:33:37pm

re: #1 Mithrax

Politics of course and some sort of cultural identity thing like with creationism. Most creationist don't care if it is true or not they just think that if they accept evolution than they are giving up their faiths and morals etc

With Climate change, liberals believe it because they think it makes them enlightened nice environmental people, and most conservatives don't believe it because they think believing it would make them big government socialists.
Of course both issues deal only with reality and not with political views. In theory a liberal should be able to say that climate change isn't real and a conservative that it is real based on the evidence they examined unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.

122 DEZes  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:33:52pm

re: #116 wrenchwench

He's trying Tulalip service on the opposition.

He should Crow about it.

123 lightspeed  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:35:17pm

Interesting reading...
Is the U.S.
Surface Temperature
Record Reliable?

124 DEZes  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:35:17pm

Keep your tails away from the rocking chair Lizards.
Later.

125 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:35:30pm

Exactly what should the average temperature of our planet be?

126 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:35:46pm

re: #6 Sharmuta

The last thing this debate needs is fake data.

The last thing needed is decisions based on fake data...

127 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:35:58pm

My comment was about the denial of reality. It wasn't intended to carry over the Tea Party debate.

128 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:36:11pm

re: #125 Racer X

Exactly what should the average temperature of our planet be?

75 degrees year round.

129 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:36:12pm

re: #125 Racer X

Exactly what should the average temperature of our planet be?

move to ABQ for the answer to that question

130 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:36:48pm

re: #103 albusteve

related?...few here would disagree...just keep doing what you do

What kind of intervention are you trying to pull off here?

131 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:19pm

re: #127 Killgore Trout

My comment was about the denial of reality. It wasn't intended to carry over the Tea Party debate.

What is this "reality" of which you speak?

132 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:28pm

re: #125 Racer X

Exactly what should the average temperature of our planet be?

That's easy, what ever brings out shorts, mini skirts and halter tops....

*runs away*

133 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:35pm

re: #110 gmsc

Glacial advance and retreat isn't evidence of global warming or cooling. Glaciers advance when they get more snow on top, enlarging them. They shrink if there's not enough snow to cause them to advance. More snowfall on a particular glacier doesn't prove global warming or cooling by itself.

134 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:48pm

re: #91 Sharmuta

Creepy is a good word for it.

I responded to your #808 of the last thread here:

870

135 Mithrax  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:49pm

re: #131 Racer X

What is this "reality" of which you speak?

Reality is that which your shin finds in the dark.

136 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:49pm

re: #106 Flyers1974

Very interesting quote you have there. Who is really against nuclear power these days? I know the left used to be against nuclear in the 1970's but haven't heard the issue debated much as of late. Almost a solution too good to be true. I wonder if it is the cost of building the plants that have taken the issue off the table (if I'm correct in thinking the nuclear option has largely disappeared.)

Flyers 1974 -

"THE LEFT" is still against "NUCULAR" POWER - it is a matter of FAITH. For what it is worth, President CARTER wasn't. HE went down to Three Mile Island, went in, looked and said things were ok. Much as I dislike the Former President on other issues, on this HE WAS RIGHT - by training, he was a Nuclear Engineer - Navy Style. On this issue - He was a MENSCH!

-S-

137 Truck Monkey  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:37:57pm

re: #132 jcm

That's easy, what ever brings out shorts, mini skirts and halter tops....

*runs away*

Amen brother.

138 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:38:02pm

re: #131 Racer X

What is this "reality" of which you speak?

The next thing that Obama plans on taxing.

139 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:38:33pm

re: #127 Killgore Trout

My comment was about the denial of reality. It wasn't intended to carry over the Tea Party debate.

Personally, I DID figure that was your intent with it.

/:D ... pretty danged obvious

140 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:39:16pm

re: #131 Racer X

What is this "reality" of which you speak?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues anyway.

141 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:39:41pm

re: #132 jcm

That's easy, what ever brings out shorts, mini skirts and halter tops....

*runs away*

From the window of one of my rooms in the Office, I can look out and down just far enough to get a good perspective on "things". Some are a sight to behold and some are an advertisement for Burkas?

142 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:40:26pm

re: #130 debutaunt

What kind of intervention are you trying to pull off here?

I like KT and have enormous respect for what he's doing...on the other hand he pisses me off which is exactly what he is trying to do....it's an open blog and I refrain from telling others what to post....yes I get tired of it but that's just me...he's never attacked me personally, but he has assaulted me mercilessly with his boring links...it is what it is

143 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:41:09pm

re: #131 Racer X

What is this "reality" of which you speak?

It starts with his comment #37, (a reply to doppelganglander) and continues down-thread.

144 meh130  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:41:36pm

Michael Crichton testimony to the Wegman Commission:

The hockeystick controversy drags on. But I would direct the Committee's attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann's publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to wait for validated results.

Second, the flaws in Mann's work were not caught by climate scientists, but rather by outsiders-in this case, an economist and a mathematician. They had to go to great lengths to obtain data from Mann's team, which obstructed them at every turn. When the Canadians sought help from the NSF, they were told that Mann was under no obligation to provide his data to other researchers for independent verification.

Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique. The Canadians are now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting the same runaround from other researchers. One prominent scientist [Phil Jones] told them: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Even further, some scientists complain the task of archiving is so time-consuming as to prevent them from getting any work done. But this is nonsense.

The first research paper I worked on was back in the 1960s, when all data were on stacks of paper. When we received a request for data from another lab, I had to stand at a Xerox machine, copying one page a minute, for several hours. Back then, it was appropriate to ask another lab who they were and why they wanted the data. Because their request meant a lot of work.

But today we can burn data to a CD, or post it at an ftp site for downloading. Archiving data is so easy it should have become standard practice a decade ago. Government grants should require a "replication package" as part of funding. Posting the package online should be a prerequisite to journal publication. And there's really no reason to exclude anyone from reviewing the data.

145 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:41:37pm

re: #123 lightspeed

Oh yes... linking to one of Monckton's favorite suck-ups (Watts) on a LGF thread about Monckton...

A classic.

146 Liberal Classic  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:42:05pm

re: #1 Mithrax

Sigh.

It's hard enough getting to the bottom of any climate change discussion without people faking, manipulating, or omitting.

What in the hell happened to truth in science?

There is truth in science. The truth is that the consensus view within mainstream science suggests human activity can change the earth's ecosystem. This is non-controversial, and well-supported by evidence. On a geologic timescale, we are far from the first organism to have had an impact on the climate.

If conservatives want traction among science-literate people, they are going to have to take a firm stand in favor of scientific consensus. Science denial tends to come in clusters. If someone thinks there is a conspiracy among evolutionary scientists to suppress evidence for intelligent design, they may be prone to thinking similar things about the greenhouse effect or vaccinations.

I know I am going to take some flack for drawing comparisons between global warming skepticism and evolution skepticism and vaccination skepticism. I stand by statements, because I see a lot of similarities.

147 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:43:31pm

re: #146 Liberal Classic

There is truth in science. The truth is that the consensus view within mainstream science suggests human activity can change the earth's ecosystem. This is non-controversial, and well-supported by evidence. On a geologic timescale, we are far from the first organism to have had an impact on the climate.

If conservatives want traction among science-literate people, they are going to have to take a firm stand in favor of scientific consensus. Science denial tends to come in clusters. If someone thinks there is a conspiracy among evolutionary scientists to suppress evidence for intelligent design, they may be prone to thinking similar things about the greenhouse effect or vaccinations.

I know I am going to take some flack for drawing comparisons between global warming skepticism and evolution skepticism and vaccination skepticism. I stand by statements, because I see a lot of similarities.

mostly bullshit...windy tho

148 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:43:35pm

re: #132 jcm

That's easy, what ever brings out shorts, mini skirts and halter tops....

*runs away*

That depends on who is wearing them. Do you want to see your mother-in-law in shorts, your granny in a mini skirt, and some big hairy guys in halter tops?

149 Bloodnok  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:43:49pm

re: #127 Killgore Trout

My comment was about the denial of reality. It wasn't intended to carry over the Tea Party debate.

I figured you were going for the "Top 10/Bottom 10" comment thing you were talking about last night.

150 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:44:14pm

re: #117 BlueCanuck

I remember back in the days. 70's to the early 90's shivering in the cold, shoveling all that heavy white stuff in the middle of winter. Listening to my coats crackle with the extreme cold late at night. Wearing long johns to school and generally freezing my ass off. We have had a few winters like that, but nothing like it was. So tell me how is that better then the so called global warming? It might still be happening, and if it is where's the down side?

If I understand correctly, the alarmists are concerned that large swaths of the area around the equator will become uninhabitable and unable to produce food. OTOH, northern latitudes will become verdant and productive. So I don't think the problem is really the food supply as much as the food distribution, not to mention what will become of all the people around the equator. They can't really do as their ancestors did when the Saraha became a desert -- i.e. wander off to greener pastures (literally).

151 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:44:23pm

re: #136 Dr. Shalit

Flyers 1974 -

"THE LEFT" is still against "NUCULAR" POWER - it is a matter of FAITH. For what it is worth, President CARTER wasn't. HE went down to Three Mile Island, went in, looked and said things were ok. Much as I dislike the Former President on other issues, on this HE WAS RIGHT - by training, he was a Nuclear Engineer - Navy Style. On this issue - He was a MENSCH!

-S-

Not only that, but he took his wife along with him. Talk about quelling the panic!

But I fear there will never again be a nuclear power plant built in this country. You would have to outlaw NIMBYs first.

Heck, we can't even use the near-perfect spent-fuel storage site at Yucca Mountain for all the lawsuits.

152 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:44:33pm

re: #148 Alouette

That depends on who is wearing them. Do you want to see your mother-in-law in shorts, your granny in a mini skirt, and some big hairy guys in halter tops?

How drunk are we talking here?

153 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:44:55pm

re: #122 DEZes

Careful, or he'll be up the Creek.

154 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:45:07pm

Realizing that they may have hyped AGW to an uncontrollable frenzy.....

Dems scale back global warming initiatives

155 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:45:10pm

re: #149 Bloodnok

I make the bottom 10 list all the time. I just need to get in the top 10 and the bottom 10 on the same day. It'll happen eventually.

156 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:45:35pm

re: #153 calcajun

Careful, or he'll be up the Creek.

Up the creek ain't the problem. Ever been down the falls?

157 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:45:39pm

re: #148 Alouette

That depends on who is wearing them. Do you want to see your mother-in-law in shorts, your granny in a mini skirt, and some big hairy guys in halter tops?

Best reason I've heard for a new Ice Age.......

EWWW!

158 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:46:21pm

Full letter (and the story behind it) here:

The argument that manmade CO2 emissions will lead to a catastrophe is based on a three step argument.

1. CO2 has a first order effect that warms the planet
2. The planet is dominated by net positive feedback effects that multiply this first order effect 3 or more times.
3. These higher temperatures will lead to and already are causing catastrophic effects.

You are dead right on #1, and skeptics who fight this are truly swimming against the science. The IPCC has an equation that results in a temperature sensitivity of about 1.2C per doubling of CO2 as a first order effect, and I have found little reason to quibble with this. Most science-based skeptics accept this as well, or a number within a few tenths.

The grand weakness of the alarmist case comes in #2. It is the rare long-term stable natural physical process that is dominated by positive feedback, and the evidence that Earth’s climate is dominated by feedbacks so high as to triple (in the IPCC report) or more (e.g. per Joe Romm) the climate sensitivity is weak or in great dispute. To say this point is “settled science” is absurd.

So thus we get to the heart of the dispute. Catastrophists posit enormous temperature increases, deflecting criticism by saying that CO2 as a greenhouse gas is settled. Though half right, they gloss over the fact that 2/3 or more of their projected temperature increase is based on a theory of Earth’s climate being dominated by strong positive feedbacks, a theory that is most certainly not settled, and in fact is probably wrong. Temperature increases over the last 100 years are consistent with neutral to negative, not positive feedback, and the long-term history of temperatures and CO2 are utterly inconsistent with the proposition there is positive feedback or a tipping point hidden around 350ppm CO2.

So stop repeating “settled science” like it was garlic in front of a vampire. Deal with the best arguments of skeptics, not their worst.

I see someone is arguing that skeptics have not posited an alternate theory to explain 20th century temperatures. In fact, a number have. A climate sensitivity to CO2 of 1.2C combined with net negative feedback, a term to account for ENSO and the PDO, plus an acknowledgment that the sun has been in a relatively strong phase in the second half of the 20th century model temperatures fairly well. In fact, these terms are a much cleaner fit than the contortions alarmists have to go through to try to fit a 3C+ sensitivity to a 0.6C historic temperature increase.

Finally, I want to spend a bit of time on #3. I certainly think that skeptics often make fools of themselves. But, because nature abhors a vacuum, alarmists tend to in turn make buffoons of themselves, particularly when predicting the effects on other climate variables of even mild temperature increases. The folks positing ridiculous catastrophes from small temperature increases are just embarrassing themselves.

Even bright people like Obama fall into the trap. Earlier this year he said that global warming was a factor in making the North Dakota floods worse.

Really? He knows this? First, anyone familiar with the prediction and analysis of complex systems would laugh at such certainty vis a vis one variable’s effect on a dynamic system. Further, while most anything is possible, his comment tends to ignore the fact that North Dakota had a colder than normal winter and record snowfalls, which is what caused the flood (record snows = record melts). To say that he knows that global warming contributed to record cold and snow is a pretty heroic assumption.

159 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:46:22pm

re: #152 Nevergiveup

How drunk are we talking here?

I'd pass-out first-

160 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:46:49pm

re: #150 doppelganglander

Okay, so things warm up and we get a lot of great land here in Canada. Do you know most of it is considered uninhabitale due to the cold? Most of our population is grouped by the U.S. Border because that's where it's the most warm. So if people had to move, we would probably end up with a lot more land to use. Russia would also be the same way.

161 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:47:08pm

re: #120 IslandLibertarian

I was on the far eastern tip of the island of Java in Indonesia. There was no way there except by boat. Walking the beach, I encountered man made pollution.
We do affect the planet. We need to clean up our messes. But the Carbon tax scam is all about power.

Island Libertarian -

What you saw was GARBAGE. GARBAGE can be picked up, sorted, separated and recycled. In My building, we have Haitian Heritage Tenants who put their Garbage out in a plastic bag in front of their apartments. They must think they have "Concierge Garbage Service" - at least it is an improvement over not bagging it. They all have been given "Notice to Quit" notices about it, if they fall behind in rent, it is an extra "Hook" to hang an eviction upon. Your observation on the "Carbon Tax" to my mind is correct.
That is all.

-S-

162 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:48:04pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Not only that, but he took his wife along with him. Talk about quelling the panic!

But I fear there will never again be a nuclear power plant built in this country. You would have to outlaw NIMBYs first.

Heck, we can't even use the near-perfect spent-fuel storage site at Yucca Mountain for all the lawsuits.

We'll see nuke plants being built again - rising energy costs will see to that.

As far as Yucca mountain - Dingy Harry won't be there forever, and once he is gone that place will be open for business.

163 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:48:45pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Not only that, but he took his wife along with him. Talk about quelling the panic!

But I fear there will never again be a nuclear power plant built in this country. You would have to outlaw NIMBYs first.

Heck, we can't even use the near-perfect spent-fuel storage site at Yucca Mountain for all the lawsuits.

Cato -

I live in Asbury Park, NJ. Put a "Wind Farm" within sight of my Office and I will turn it into a TOURIST ATTRACTION!

-S-

164 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:48:53pm

re: #158 gmsc

nice..I liked that post

165 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:48:57pm

There is truth in science. It's implicit, in the sense that it's ultimately self-checking. A problem arises if its practitioners become politicized. At that point, the problem isn't with science, per se. It's with the practitioners.

I'm reminded of the utter crap that "environmentalists" put out about the Mount Graham Red Squirrel back in the 80's, trying to keep the Univ. of AZ from expanding its telescope facility atop Mount Graham by 10 acres.

/the lies even snookered in a Federal Judge -- idiot

166 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:49:21pm

I've said on several previous threads at LGF that I heard two climate change scientists debate the issue a little over a year ago here in NYC. They were respectful of each other, thoughtful, and argued from the data. They agreed on most of the data, but didn't agree on what conclusions to draw from it.

They agreed, for example, that CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere. The anti scientist (from MIT) noted that temperatures are NOT rising in the temperate zones of the earth's surface proportionate to the rise on CO2 levels. They ARE rising faster at the poles. The pro scientist agreed.

The anti scientist basically said that current modeling is inadequate to take into account that 80% of the earth's surface is fluid. The oceans may be buffering temperature rises. No one knows for sure. He said that enough uncertainty remains that drastic action to reduce economic activity is NOT warranted. And he made it clear that there is no consensus among scientists on the appropriate political and economic responses. He made it clear that alarmism is not in order.

167 lobo91  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:50:41pm

re: #154 Russkilitlover

Realizing that they may have hyped AGW to an uncontrollable frenzy.....

Dems scale back global warming initiatives

That's okay...they have a backup plan to destroy our economy:

Obama, Dems press unified message on health care

WASHINGTON – The White House scrambled to unify Democrats behind a single health care appeal Wednesday — lower costs, plenty of choice — amid concerns Republicans could scare votes away with images of a ghastly system run by bureaucrats. A key senator pushed to enforce an offer from care providers to trim $2 trillion in costs over the next decade.

Apparently, they've never heard the old saying that there are three options for having something done: It can be done quickly; it can be done cheaply; or it can be done well.

You only get to have 2 of the 3.

168 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:50:59pm

What is Normal? A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory

Google Video
169 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:51:16pm

Fish news....

Fish that triggers hallucinations found off British coast


A species of bream, sarpa salpa, which can trigger hallucinations when eaten, has been been discovered in British waters due to global warming.

Sarpa salpa are a popular dish in many Mediterranean restaurants.

But according to marine experts, certain species of plankton-eating fish, like the sarpa salpa, can give off hallucinogenic fish poisoning if the heads or other body parts are consumed.

The effects include vivid hallucinations within minutes of eating it which can last for days.

Eat a hallucinogenic fish and tell me there's no global warming.

170 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:52:28pm

re: #169 Killgore Trout

Fish news....

Fish that triggers hallucinations found off British coast


Eat a hallucinogenic fish and tell me there's no global warming.

Walter won't even eat tasty fish.

171 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:52:43pm

What the GOP needs to do is insert a clause in every environmentally-related bill (or, hey, every bill they're against) that would ban ownership of private jets.

That would certainly get the attention of the Dems.

172 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:53:31pm

re: #169 Killgore Trout

Fish news....

Fish that triggers hallucinations found off British coast

Eat a hallucinogenic fish and tell me there's no global warming.

Killgore Trout -

"Hmmm... a Fish that is better than Peyote - I want that" - Homer Simpson

-S-

173 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:53:37pm

hallucinogenic fish ... "EelSD"

174 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:53:43pm

re: #169 Killgore Trout

Fish news....

Fish that triggers hallucinations found off British coast

Eat a hallucinogenic fish and tell me there's no global warming.


If I ate one of them fish, i might be telling ya how sexy you are looking? Now there is a scary thought?

175 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:53:56pm

re: #166 quickjustice

So, when Al Gore proclaimed the ice caps were going to be gone within 5 years that was kinda a bad thing?

176 Flyers1974  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:54:01pm

re: #118 Nevergiveup

Been hiding somewhere? The Democratic Party, The Present President, the Left, The Far Left, The Progressives are all against Nuclear Energy.

I'm a pro-Obama, Democrat, but I guess not in this case... I don't see the problem today with nuclear power. If the Dems are against it for ideological reasons, I'm baffled as to why. On the other hand, I haven't exactly heard the Republican Party make this a center piece of their energy policy - to the contrary, the line at the convention re: energy was drill, baby, drill, not build nuclear power plants baby, build. If it is true that neither party is seriously pushing nuclear power, I wonder if the disposal issue trumps everything else. i.e., not in my back yard...

178 itellu3times  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:54:42pm

re: #1 Mithrax

Sigh.

It's hard enough getting to the bottom of any climate change discussion without people faking, manipulating, or omitting.

What in the hell happened to truth in science?

It's never been a universal trait of science to be honest, competent, or correct.

But out of peer review and repeated research, eventually it cleans up and flies right.

Not any better to watch it close up, than to watch sausage being made.

179 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:54:52pm

re: #171 gmsc

What the GOP needs to do is insert a clause in every environmentally-related bill (or, hey, every bill they're against) that would ban ownership of private jets.

That would certainly get the attention of the Dems.


Never fly the "O" loves her jet....

180 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:55:16pm

re: #179 jcm

Never fly the "O" loves her jet....

Exactly the story that made me think of that suggestion!

181 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:55:23pm

re: #169 Killgore Trout

Fish news....

Fish that triggers hallucinations found off British coast

Eat a hallucinogenic fish and tell me there's no global warming.

Dude, quit bogin' the fish.

182 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:55:30pm

re: #175 Racer X

So, when Al Gore proclaimed the ice caps were going to be gone within 5 years that was kinda a bad thing?

How long ago did he let slip that gem?

183 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:55:40pm

re: #160 BlueCanuck

Okay, so things warm up and we get a lot of great land here in Canada. Do you know most of it is considered uninhabitable due to the cold? Most of our population is grouped by the U.S. Border because that's where it's the most warm. So if people had to move, we would probably end up with a lot more land to use. Russia would also be the same way.


If it came to that, yes, the UN would probably be providing you with millions of guests from Africa. I don't seriously think it's going to come to that.

184 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:55:45pm

re: #146 Liberal Classic

Science doesn't work through "consensus". Neither does democracy. Good science tests hypotheses and looks at data. Good science replicates the results of studies and experiments, over and over again.

I've heard climate scientists debate. I'd be concerned if there were no debates. The scientists agree that the climate is changing. They also agree that CO2 levels are rising. Should I be alarmed about that? Or should I thoughtfully consider whether such changes are manageable, or require management, without reducing the human race to abject poverty and reduction in standards of living?

185 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:56:10pm

Just for the sake of argument, I am going to say that whatever the validity of AGW and however great the chances are that anything we can do short of culling the species by a factor of 9 in 10 will have a noticeable effect on it, we will not do anything to prevent future disasters that would cause pain to more than 5% of the people who elect the politicians. We will go merrily down the road to perdition, dooming future generations to deal with our eco-messes, just as we're doing with budgets, debt and every other "it's too unpleasant, let's put it off on the grandkids" problem.

I once read an essay by a German ethicist (I believe that's what he was, if anyone can help me out here, I'd be grateful) who pointed out that to any given individual within a species, the death of that entire species is of no more consequence than the individual's own particular death. A corollary to that would be: The present well-being of any given individual is as important to that individual as the well-being of the species as a whole. How much more so when we're talking about future species members and not about those trying to muddle through today.

Add to this the general human inability to think more than three steps ahead on any given day, and you can see where this is heading.

186 itellu3times  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:56:59pm

re: #33 doppelganglander

I'll never understand people who try to pass off fraudulent data. They've got to know they'll get caught, discredit their own movement, destroy their career and become a laughingstock. It must be a unique combination of stupidity and arrogance.

It's called knucklehead syndrome, and the prisons are full of them.

Not to mention the Congress.

187 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:57:04pm

I like redc1c4's answer to the climate change alarmists:

re: #138 redc1c4

as i often tell the overly concerned: "I have no children. This planet only has to last long enough for me." %-)

188 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:57:06pm

re: #176 Flyers1974

I'm a pro-Obama, Democrat, but I guess not in this case... I don't see the problem today with nuclear power. If the Dems are against it for ideological reasons, I'm baffled as to why. On the other hand, I haven't exactly heard the Republican Party make this a center piece of their energy policy - to the contrary, the line at the convention re: energy was drill, baby, drill, not build nuclear power plants baby, build. If it is true that neither party is seriously pushing nuclear power, I wonder if the disposal issue trumps everything else. i.e., not in my back yard...

Flyers 1974 -

THERE IS HOPE FOR YOU YET! In 1974 I was quite Left. We began separating over "NUCULAR" Power and the Second Amendment. I kept on trudging and haven't looked back.

-S-

189 pingjockey  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:57:49pm

re: #177 Killgore Trout

Ahahahaha! Mwahahaha! ACORN ninjas! That is a hoot. I want some of what Beck is smoking! Screw that damn LSD fish.

190 doppelganglander  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:58:41pm

re: #177 Killgore Trout

Glenn Beck Says ACORN Ninjas Are Trying to Kill Him

Dude. Time to up those meds.

191 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:58:48pm

re: #176 Flyers1974

I'm a pro-Obama, Democrat, but I guess not in this case... I don't see the problem today with nuclear power. If the Dems are against it for ideological reasons, I'm baffled as to why. On the other hand, I haven't exactly heard the Republican Party make this a center piece of their energy policy - to the contrary, the line at the convention re: energy was drill, baby, drill, not build nuclear power plants baby, build. If it is true that neither party is seriously pushing nuclear power, I wonder if the disposal issue trumps everything else. i.e., not in my back yard...

everyone already knows the benefits of nuclear power...chanting does no good...the donks own the govt and the courts...there will be no nuclear power

192 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:59:32pm

re: #177 Killgore Trout

Glenn Beck Says ACORN Ninjas Are Trying to Kill Him

That's weird.

Why does Glenn Beck think my ninjas were from ACORN?

//////

193 neocon hippie  Wed, May 13, 2009 4:59:42pm

re: #150 doppelganglander

If I understand correctly, the alarmists are concerned that large swaths of the area around the equator will become uninhabitable and unable to produce food. OTOH, northern latitudes will become verdant and productive. So I don't think the problem is really the food supply as much as the food distribution, not to mention what will become of all the people around the equator. They can't really do as their ancestors did when the Saraha became a desert -- i.e. wander off to greener pastures (literally).

I have read that most of the warming occurs at and around the poles, and not so much around the equator.

194 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:00:25pm

re: #182 debutaunt

How long ago did he let slip that gem?


Sorry - Al proclaimed the North Polar Ice Cap will disappear within 5 years.
December 2008

195 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:00:34pm

re: #177 Killgore Trout

Glenn Beck Says ACORN Ninjas Are Trying to Kill Him

ACORN has Ninjas?

Damn I'm on the wrong side, I just get to play with my guns.

196 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:00:49pm

re: #176 Flyers1974

I'm a pro-Obama, Democrat, but I guess not in this case... I don't see the problem today with nuclear power. If the Dems are against it for ideological reasons, I'm baffled as to why. On the other hand, I haven't exactly heard the Republican Party make this a center piece of their energy policy - to the contrary, the line at the convention re: energy was drill, baby, drill, not build nuclear power plants baby, build. If it is true that neither party is seriously pushing nuclear power, I wonder if the disposal issue trumps everything else. i.e., not in my back yard...

McCain was pro nuclear energy. His plans called for the building of 30 new plants. You must have had your selective hearing on.

197 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:01:02pm

re: #194 Racer X

Sorry - Al proclaimed the North Polar Ice Cap will disappear within 5 years.
December 2008

I love specific dates like that!

198 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:01:43pm

re: #193 neocon hippie

I have read that most of the warming occurs at and around the poles, and not so much around the equator.

I don't know. A long time ago, Egypt used to be lush and green. Then the Ancient Egyptians started building pyramids and temples, their CO2 levels shot up, and Egypt has been a desert ever since . . .

199 debutaunt  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:02:50pm

re: #194 Racer X

Sorry - Al proclaimed the North Polar Ice Cap will disappear within 5 years.
December 2008

If that coincides with the Mayan calendar, I believe he copied off their paper.

200 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:02:57pm

re: #175 Racer X

Gore was a classmate of mine. He was an affable fellow, but not terribly bright. He considered himself a futurist, but certainly was no scientist. If Gore's correct, we might as well start building arcs. It's too late to do anything else. My own view is that alarm isn't warranted. Thoughtful discussion and cost-benefit analysis is essential.

There is climate change. Does it warrant alarm and emergency action, apart from turning up our air conditioners? That's what we should focus on.

201 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:04:10pm

re: #198 gmsc

I don't know. A long time ago, Egypt used to be lush and green. Then the Ancient Egyptians started building pyramids and temples, their CO2 levels shot up, and Egypt has been a desert ever since . . .

I thought Moses and the Plaques had something to do with that. Oh and the Six Day War?

202 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:04:53pm

re: #201 Nevergiveup

I thought Moses and the Plaques had something to do with that. Oh and the Six Day War?

You mean those plaques they hang in the museums?

203 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:05:27pm

re: #199 debutaunt

If that coincides with the Mayan calendar, I believe he copied off their paper.

No that was Teddy Kennedy. He was a plagiarizer before he took up underwater exploration in his car?

204 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:05:46pm

re: #161 Dr. Shalit

What I saw was flotsam, plastic washed up on an isolated (think "LOST") beach. No villages, no native inhabitants, just the beach as it had been for however long it had been there.
One mans pollution is another mans garbage.
Plastic bags suck!

205 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:05:50pm

re: #202 Cato the Elder

You mean those plaques they hang in the museums?

Yeah that too?

206 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:06:15pm

re: #200 quickjustice

See my #185

207 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:06:49pm
208 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:07:33pm

re: #201 Nevergiveup

I thought Moses and the Plaques had something to do with that. Oh and the Six Day War?

I understand Moses blamed bush for that.

209 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:07:38pm

re: #177 Killgore Trout

what did he have to eat the night before? Fish maybe?

210 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:07:39pm

re: #198 gmsc

I don't know. A long time ago, Egypt used to be lush and green. Then the Ancient Egyptians started building pyramids and temples, their CO2 levels shot up, and Egypt has been a desert ever since . . .

One of their Pharaohs claimed he knew a way to Cheops the CO2 level in half, but he failed.

/they were DOOMED!

211 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:08:30pm

re: #210 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Very poor humor. Tut, tut.

212 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:08:45pm

Of course, I knew the dreaded "hockey stick" controversy would come up. It always does.

But the bottom line with the "hockey stick" graph: the most you can say about it is that it was based on mistaken information. NOT deliberately falsified information.

The more I research the climate change issues, the more I'm seeing that nearly ALL of the deliberate fakery is coming from the anti-AGW side. Monckton is a prime example, but you don't have to search very hard to find others. Another dreadful example of distortions, misrepresentations, and fraud is the website run by James Inhofe; it's almost unbelievable how much sheer BS is posted there. It reminds me very much of a creationist website -- and that's not totally a coincidence because ... imagine my shock! ... Inhofe is also a young earth creationist.

I've found very few examples of deliberately misrepresented scientific data from the AGW side. I know this isn't a popular view among conservatives, but it's true.

I'm still skeptical about the long-term consequences, but getting less so as I research it. I AM, however, becoming increasingly disgusted with the lies and distortions I'm seeing from the GOP and right wing on the issue.

213 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:08:48pm

re: #208 gmsc

I understand Moses blamed bush for that.

Flaming liberal?

214 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:08:58pm

02:54 Obama warns Netanyahu: Do not surprise me with Iran strike (Haaret

Who died and made him President of Israel also?

215 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:09:04pm

re: #209 ArmyWife

what did he have to eat the night before? Fish maybe?

I think FOX News needs to understand how critical the situation is. It depends not only on finding someone who is able to run a news station, but also who didn't have fish for dinner last night.

216 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:09:33pm

re: #185 Cato the Elder

There are two distinct issues here:

1. 80% of people operate on their emotions, not on reason or logic. To prevail politically, you must appeal to their emotions. That's what Gore has done.

2. If you look at science and predictions 100 years ago, almost all of them are wrong, or utterly failed to foresee where modern technology would take us. Being arrogant enough to predict where we'll be in 100 years' time is itself folly.

217 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:09:48pm

re: #211 ArmyWife

Very poor humor. Tut, tut.

Apparently poor enough to tighten Sphinxtures around here.

218 Flyers1974  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:10:12pm

re: #196 screaming_eagle

McCain was pro nuclear energy. His plans called for the building of 30 new plants. You must have had your selective hearing on.

No selective hearing aid for me - If you review the thread, I was unaware of either side's view on the nuclear issue, other than remembering the protests in the 1970's. Wasn't exactly a hot topic during the Obama-McCain campaign. No need to create a false enemy here, at least not regarding this issue.

219 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:10:20pm

re: #160 BlueCanuck

Okay, so things warm up and we get a lot of great land here in Canada. Do you know most of it is considered uninhabitale due to the cold? Most of our population is grouped by the U.S. Border because that's where it's the most warm. So if people had to move, we would probably end up with a lot more land to use. Russia would also be the same way.

BlueCanuck -

You are Canadian, you are supposed to "suck it up" - Don't you Love It? I wouldn't if I were Canadian. In a Passable Northwest Passage, CANADA has a bright future, so long as the rest of the world stays lawful. If not - Call 1-800-US NAVY - You are "First Cousins" - it will be taken care of.

-S-

220 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:10:31pm

I've known about global warming and our effects on it since the early 80's, it's one of the reasons I became a proponent of nuclear energy back then. It's somewhat apparent that we need to do something sometime to abate our effects, and more so as our population grows. Sometime is probably this century, but not likely beyond next century.

That said I do have priorities; humanity and our future comes first. The more dire and demonstrably nearer problem is our population, paucity of clean energy, and food. It's poverty vs. wealth, peace vs. war, and liberty vs. tyranny.

We do need to do something but we shouldn't bankrupt countries, starve people, or create major wars to get it done.

221 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:10:35pm

re: #208 gmsc

I understand Moses blamed bush for that.

the burning one...

222 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:10:36pm

if Angels and Demons is as bad as that first movie...Tom Hanks career is finished...just awful stuff

223 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:10:56pm

re: #216 quickjustice

There are two distinct issues here:

1. 80% of people operate on their emotions, not on reason or logic. To prevail politically, you must appeal to their emotions. That's what Gore has done.

2. If you look at science and predictions 100 years ago, almost all of them are wrong, or utterly failed to foresee where modern technology would take us. Being arrogant enough to predict where we'll be in 100 years' time is itself folly.

100 years ago, the state of technology and science was VASTLY less advanced than it is now.

224 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:11:15pm

re: #212 Charles

Very interesting (about your research on GW).
Thanks.

225 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:12:03pm

re: #223 Charles

100 years ago, the state of technology and science was VASTLY less advanced than it is now.

And what do you think they will say about out science 100 years from now?

226 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:12:09pm

re: #222 albusteve

if Angels and Demons is as bad as that first movie...Tom Hanks career is finished...just awful stuff

The big question is how they'll work Tom Hanks peeing into the new Angels and Demons movie.

Youtube Video
227 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:12:26pm

I love the AGW hype. I really do. As a conservative, it makes sense to me to conserve resources. Reducing pollution is essential. I love alternative energy.

The trick is doing these things intelligently without screwing something else up.

228 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:12:52pm

re: #219 Dr. Shalit

Of course I suck it up. I don't even vacation on the Gulf of Mexico in the winter. Point of fact, some of my earliest memories are of SNOW! That's going back over 30 some years. I might have to live with the climate, doesn't mean I have to appreciate it all the time. ;)

229 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:13:28pm

re: #215 gmsc

I'm no Glenn Beck fan, no worries. It certainly sounds like the stuff of hallucinations, though! I really think he is a publicity hound more than a genuine mental case. But I've been wrong before.

230 BlueCanuck  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:13:40pm

re: #225 Nevergiveup

And what do you think they will say about out science 100 years from now?

Probably how backwards and oh so wrong we were with everything.

231 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:13:43pm

re: #70 uptight

Lizards - leave your lights on, make unnecessary journeys and get yourself some outdoor aircon. Screw the bastards.

I'm sorry, but this is sheer irresponsibility, and you're speaking only for yourself with this comment -- not for me.

232 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:15:43pm

re: #226 gmsc

yes...pissing is very important in Hollywood, it needs it's own award

233 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:16:26pm

re: #218 Flyers1974

No selective hearing aid for me - If you review the thread, I was unaware of either side's view on the nuclear issue, other than remembering the protests in the 1970's. Wasn't exactly a hot topic during the Obama-McCain campaign. No need to create a false enemy here, at least not regarding this issue.

Look McCain even ran commericals promoting it. Other issues may have been bigger and drawn more attention, but he wanted to build 30 new plants. To say it wasn't brought up is false. The drill baby drill chant picked up steam when gas was $4 and thus got much more attention.

234 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:16:33pm

re: #223 Charles

100 years ago, the state of technology and science was VASTLY less advanced than it is now.

True, but quickjustice still has a point.

We ARE doing damage to the planet. How much? (Apart from things like the Love Canal.) We don't yet know enough to say with certainty.

It's the "Certainty Mongers" who get my dander up.

235 Flyers1974  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:17:31pm

re: #188 Dr. Shalit

Flyers 1974 -

THERE IS HOPE FOR YOU YET! In 1974 I was quite Left. We began separating over "NUCULAR" Power and the Second Amendment. I kept on trudging and haven't looked back.

-S-

re: #188 Dr. Shalit

Flyers 1974 -

THERE IS HOPE FOR YOU YET! In 1974 I was quite Left. We began separating over "NUCULAR" Power and the Second Amendment. I kept on trudging and haven't looked back.

-S-

Speaking of the second amendment, I'm probably an oddity. I'm politically pro-gun, personally have no problems with guns. Nonetheless, the wording of the 2nd amendment is pure gibberish.

236 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:18:29pm

How can Al Gore stand up there and proclaim the North Pole will be gone within 5 years, while at the same time he is making a profit by selling carbon offset credits (which really do nothing other than making you feel good)?

237 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:18:33pm

re: #216 quickjustice

There are two distinct issues here:

1. 80% of people operate on their emotions, not on reason or logic. To prevail politically, you must appeal to their emotions. That's what Gore has done.

2. If you look at science and predictions 100 years ago, almost all of them are wrong, or utterly failed to foresee where modern technology would take us. Being arrogant enough to predict where we'll be in 100 years' time is itself folly.

And what I'm saying is that even if Gore is right and the ice caps will be gone in 1213 (right after the Mayan apocalypse), and even if he convinces 99% of the people of that using appeals to emotion, the determination to do anything about it will evaporate as soon as you make the individual costs clear. Right now people talk as if the sacrifices will all be up to industry and the neighbors.

So in the end it's academic whether he's right or wrong, because humanity as a whole will not get off its ass for five minutes a day or spend ten cents an hour this week to save five hours a day or ten bucks an hour next week.

Does this mean I'm a pessimist?

238 funky chicken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:18:35pm

This guy and James Hanson need to run off to Fiji together. They are two peas in a pod.

239 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:19:35pm

re: #217 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Apparently poor enough to tighten Sphinxtures around here.

Apparently, someone did not like the Simbel-ism he used.

240 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:19:43pm

re: #234 pre-Boomer Marine brat

True, but quickjustice still has a point.

I don't think so. 'quickjustice' is trying to say that because so many predictions were wrong 100 years ago, they're probably equally wrong today -- and I don't think that's remotely true. Science and technology have made unbelievable strides forward in measurement and analysis, so much so that the techniques we use today would have seemed like incomprehensible magic to the best scientists 100 years ago. There's no comparison.

241 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:20:48pm

.......I'll never joke about Beck, Ninjas or Kilgore ever again...........

242 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:20:51pm

re: #212 Charles

In the end, falsifying data doesn't advance the argument, and discredits the falsifiers. But two wrongs don't make a right, and I view Gore's alarmism as an attempt to stampede people, using emotion and panic, toward central authoritarian political control of behavior.

I'm not sure the GOP knows how to argue this issue rationally. I'd start by assuming the AGW scientists are correct about their general conclusion, which is that human activity has affected the climate. That's what Lomborg does. And if rising CO2 levels are a matter for concern, isn't the appropriate societal response to create incentives to build power generating facilities like nuclear that will reduce CO2 emissions? With nuclear power-generating technology now an order of magnitude safer and more reliable than the original nuclear power plants, and miniature nuclear plants now feasible for large cities, why aren't AGW advocates on board with this?

Answer: AGW advocates jump from arguing for human-caused climate change directly to moving back into caves with a hugely reduced standard of living. That's a leap of faith, not rational policy.

243 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:20:51pm

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Why bring them here. Leave them where they are. Admit you were wrong. Your already pretty much doing that anyway?

244 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:21:30pm

re: #70 uptight

Lizards - leave your lights on, make unnecessary journeys and get yourself some outdoor aircon. Screw the bastards.

To what end? A larger electric bill? More mileage on your car and unneccessary cash outlay for gas?

Look. I am not buying into the Earth is DOOMED, nor will I be told I'm driving an ugly car that is going to electrocute me should I spill my coffee on the way to work. I have always advocated being a good steward of your environment. Whether GW is true or not true, this is sound advice. We shouldn't be spewing pollutants in the air if we can help it. This doesn't mean bankrupt industry to get there, but industry ought to be as clean as it can reasonably get. Don't leave trash on the ground, dispose of oil and paint properly, keep your environment clean. And don't waste for waste's sake. That's just silly.

245 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:22:28pm

re: #238 funky chicken

This guy and James Hanson need to run off to Fiji together. They are two peas in a pod.

That's not fair at all. Unless you're aware of a case in which Hansen has deliberately falsified evidence. I'm not. But on the other hand, Monckton has been caught over and over in falsehoods and distortions -- including claiming that he's a member of the House of Lords -- which he is not.

You may differ with Hansen's conclusions, but it's not correct at all to put him in the same class as Monckton.

246 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:23:01pm

re: #242 quickjustice

[...] I'm not sure the GOP knows how to argue this issue rationally. [...]

I'm not sure they know how to argue anything rationally anymore.

247 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:23:14pm

re: #216 quickjustice

There are two distinct issues here:

2. If you look at science and predictions 100 years ago, almost all of them are wrong, or utterly failed to foresee where modern technology would take us. Being arrogant enough to predict where we'll be in 100 years' time is itself folly.

re: #223 Charles

100 years ago, the state of technology and science was VASTLY less advanced than it is now.

I wish I could remember the show, but there was one with a comedy routine that started out almost exactly like this.

"100 years ago, there made wildly inaccurate guesses about where we'd be now."

"Of course. 100 years ago, science was so much less advanced than it is now. We didn't know everything like we do now . . ."

...and so on.

(Great, now the name of this show is going to haunt me until I find it out.)

248 TheMatrix31  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:23:31pm

The Penguins are sticking it into the Crapitals.

5-0.

249 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:23:58pm

re: #212 Charles

The whole movement, to undermine scientific expertise, has grown in the past 10 years.

Back when I was in college the predominant anti-science movements were the YEC, and on the "left" end of the spectrum, the anti-nuke crowd.

Since then an entire industry has sprung up (due to the internet?) to foster Anti-XYZ, where XYZ is some mainstream science (or engineering, or medicine) understanding.

The "fire can't melt steel", vaccines-cause-autism, etc. are recent flare-ups in a broader forest fire.

While I'm hoping that such consternations are caused by a few individuals seeking their 15 minutes of fame, part of me wonders if we aren't seeing some deep rejection of modernism and a desire to return to the simpler way of life pre scientific revolution.

250 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:24:19pm

re: #243 Nevergiveup

because he can't spend any Stimulus money by leaving them at Guantanamo.

251 funky chicken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:24:26pm

re: #223 Charles

100 years ago, the state of technology and science was VASTLY less advanced than it is now.

Here's my HUGE problem--factories in China, Mexico, Indonesia, etc all pollute much more than anything here or in the EU, and because they don't have to respect environmental laws they can make stuff much, much cheaper. If the UN or other regulatory body wants to fight global pollution they need to go after the folks who are doing by far the most damage.

Instead they want to come after US and EU industries which only contribute a drop in the bucket pollution-wise.

That's what makes the whole thing look like just another way to loot us rather than solve any real problems, and pollution is a problem.

252 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:25:23pm

If Global warming is such a threat where is the crash program to switch the US power grid to nuclear?

Where is the program to switch light vehicles to natural gas?

Why are the solutions proposed massive tax programs which will damage the economy, restrictions on economic liberties and marginal energy technologies?

Not only do I look at the science and see natural cyclical climate change with an undermined human component. I look at what the proponents of AGW propose as solutions.

The doom and gloom they preach do not match with the efficacy of the proposed solutions.

253 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:26:35pm

re: #251 funky chicken

Here's my HUGE problem--factories in China, Mexico, Indonesia, etc all pollute much more than anything here or in the EU, and because they don't have to respect environmental laws they can make stuff much, much cheaper. If the UN or other regulatory body wants to fight global pollution they need to go after the folks who are doing by far the most damage.

Instead they want to come after US and EU industries which only contribute a drop in the bucket pollution-wise.

That's what makes the whole thing look like just another way to loot us rather than solve any real problems, and pollution is a problem.

This is part of my favorite arguments against AGW: "Hey, why doesn't the US use that special Chinese type of pollution with which the UN has aboslutely no problems?"

254 WhiteRasta  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:26:48pm

I look and see who is promoting AGW. It's the usual suspects, Algor, David Suzuki, and the professional Parasite, Stephen Lewis. None of these people are "scientists" in any sense of the word.

Furthermore, CO2 is plant food. Without CO2 earth would be a barren desert. For people to jump up and down declaring CO2 a "poison" is just nonsense, bordering on witchcraft.

255 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:27:28pm

When I first converted to a nuclear energy proponent the left was chanting "Split Wood Not Atoms!" and "The only physics I know is Ex-Lax". This was during the days when they closed the reactor that would have kept the rolling brown outs away in Sacramento. (forget the name of the plant)
We would get into stiff debates with the split wood crowd because they were for things that obviously caused more pollution and harm and they eventually morphed into the Biomass proponents who are still out there - working for ADM and Clean Coal... (there's an oxymoron) Nuclear was too evil.

The funny thing is that when you brought up the global warming issue to the mostly "burn wood" leftist crowd then they reacted exactly as the right is now.

256 MacGregor  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:27:36pm

re: #245 Charles

Soros foundation gave $720,000 to James Hansen to Politicize Science
What do you think?

257 Anna D  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:27:38pm

Charles's and the responsive blog entries are starting to sound like a left wing echo chamber. In case you forgot, the Islamists still want to kill you and me. Leave Monckton alone and focus on the Muslim Brotherhood in America. Islamism is a far greater threat to Western civilization and life on Earth than creationism, global warming (cooling) and Robert Spencer.

258 Noah's Arrrgh  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:27:43pm

Having spent a good part of my career modeling dynamic or physical system, I'm really skeptical when I hear claims of how various models are predicting any number of (usually calamitous) outcomes from AGW. The TTAPS model failure during the first Gulf war comes to mind.

Having said that, though, I think it is absolutely imprudent to dismiss the findings of so many climate scientists as poppycock. A number of common sense steps can be taken to mitigate at least part of the exposure to some of the possible effects of AGW. To my mind, the most important of these is to move forward in the substitution of nuclear power for coal power. If there is little problem with coal produced CO2, we'll have saved our coal resource for later. The second step is to move forward to increased electrification of our transportation sector.

BTW, the added advantage of this two-step plan is it makes us more energy resilient, and weakens economically a number of states with values that are antithetical to the western liberal tradition.

259 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:28:02pm

re: #253 gmsc

This is part of my favorite arguments against AGW: "Hey, why doesn't the US use that special Chinese type of pollution with which the UN has aboslutely no problems?"

LOL, I'm gonna remember that one.

260 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:28:28pm

Anyone here remember SMUD, Rancho Seco and their LOW utility bills?

261 Flyers1974  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:28:42pm

re: #233 screaming_eagle

I'm not sure if there is any substantive disagreement between us on this one. I wasn't aware of either sides' general view on this issue, let alone specific plans. Building 30 nuclear plants sounds good to me, for multiple reasons.

262 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:28:43pm

re: #240 Charles

I don't think so. 'quickjustice' is trying to say that because so many predictions were wrong 100 years ago, they're probably equally wrong today -- and I don't think that's remotely true. Science and technology have made unbelievable strides forward in measurement and analysis, so much so that the techniques we use today would have seemed like incomprehensible magic to the best scientists 100 years ago. There's no comparison.


I am not so sure about that. It's probably true that there is no comparison, but you could be just as wrong as quickjustice on that point. Neither of you have any idea how advanced science may be in 100 years.

263 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:29:20pm

re: #240 Charles

I don't think so. 'quickjustice' is trying to say that because so many predictions were wrong 100 years ago, they're probably equally wrong today -- and I don't think that's remotely true. Science and technology have made unbelievable strides forward in measurement and analysis, so much so that the techniques we use today would have seemed like incomprehensible magic to the best scientists 100 years ago. There's no comparison.

I see what you're saying. QJ's sentence ... "Being arrogant enough to predict where we'll be in 100 years' time is itself folly" ... can't be supported. Too absolute, and, in its wording, subjective.

If one were to back way off from that ("arrogant", "is itself folly"), there remains a point to consider.

264 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:29:46pm

re: #257 Anna D

I don't recall asking you for advice about what I should post at LGF.

265 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:29:50pm

re: #240 Charles

Science and technology have made unbelievable strides forward in measurement and analysis, so much so that the techniques we use today would have seemed like incomprehensible magic to the best scientists 100 years ago

And the techniques that will be developed by my sons generation (he's 15) and HIS sons generation 100 years from now will make ours look like rock carvings!

266 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:30:36pm

re: #254 WhiteRasta

I look and see who is promoting AGW. It's the usual suspects, Algor, David Suzuki, and the professional Parasite, Stephen Lewis. None of these people are "scientists" in any sense of the word.

Furthermore, CO2 is plant food. Without CO2 earth would be a barren desert. For people to jump up and down declaring CO2 a "poison" is just nonsense, bordering on witchcraft.

Humans also exhale CO2. Does that make us pollutants?

267 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:30:49pm

re: #223 Charles

Agreed. But science and technology still operate within a larger moral, political, and economic framework. As a philosopher of the Holocaust noted, the Holocaust was perpetrated by highly skilled and educated German engineers, scientists, physicians, soldiers, and technicians. Murdering millions must be done systematically. Without dwelling upon the extreme dystopia of Holocaust, my point is that we haven't even addressed the short-term issues adequately and humanely, without trying to go out 100 years.

You should take a look at the Copenhagen Consensus website, Charles. [Link: www.copenhagenconsensus.com...] You may not agree with Lomborg, but he's proposing a rational method of prioritizing important global issues. He has Nobel prize winners on board with him. At least that's a start.

268 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:13pm

re: #257 Anna D

In case you forgot, the Islamists still want to kill you and me

Show me somewhere in the LGF archives where Charles and/ or any lizards say otherwise

269 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:13pm

re: #257 Anna D

In fact, I'll make it easier for you to spend more time at Robert Spencer's site by yanking your posting privileges. No need to thank me.

270 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:23pm

re: #257 Anna D

So you're saying blogs should stick to only one topic?

Thats absurd.

271 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:27pm

re: #252 jcm

If Global warming is such a threat where is the crash program to switch the US power grid to nuclear?

Then you agree with Dr. Hansen that we need a crash program for a 4th generation nuclear reactor (which Dr. Hansen also points out would be different than the current long-running DOE 4th gen reactor program.)

Where is the program to switch light vehicles to natural gas?

JCM ♥ Boone Pickens!

272 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:31pm

Just read the RealClimate debunking post.

They accidentally shoot themselves in the foot in several ways.

First they use the exact same hyperbolic language they mock Monkton of using. Their cries of "FAKE!" are overstating the situation just as wildly as his cries of "INACCURATE!" were.

Their main point of contention is that he chose a random starting point for the graph, which made it look like things are trending down. They don't dispute the data in that graph, only that his starting date did not accurately reflect a longer term trend. Then they go and do the exact same "fakery" by presenting their own graph which also has "random" starting point to show that on a different time scale, the trend is going up. But of course, someone else could produce a different graph with a different starting point and different time scale which shows whatever trend you choose.

And that's the whole point: Depending on who's making and choosing the parameters of the graph, you can "prove" almost any point -- the trend is up, it's down, it's large, it's negligible, etc. So RealClimate shoot themselves in the foot by engaging in the exact same "fakery" (which isn't really fakery at all) when presenting their graph.

Whatever argument RealClimate produces to argue their way out of this accusation, Monkton could use the exact same argument.

Next: By not challenging or debunking the data in Monkton's graph, they are conceding that since 2002, the temperatures have gone down.

Whether that is significant is another story altogether.

For the next foot-shot, they "debunk" Monkton by showing a quote from the IPCC which basically confirms what many of the "deniers" including Monkton are claiming, namely that the climate is too chaotic and variable to predict. RealClimate quotes IPCC as saying:

Complex systems often allow deterministic predictability of some characteristics … yet do not permit skilful forecasts of other phenomena …

...

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states….

Well, isn't that the crux of the matter? If we can't accurately predict, and the doomsday projections are at best guesstimates and at worse not much better than random, then why is everybody hysterical about "climate change"?

I know nothing at all about Monkton aside from this post, but I don't see how his "deception" is any different qualitatively than the "deception" of his ideological opponents.

273 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:51pm

re: #266 LGoPs

Humans also exhale CO2. Does that make us pollutants?

depends on how you vote...

274 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:55pm

re: #270 Racer X

So you're saying blogs should stick to only one topic?

Thats absurd.

no ,, she's saying BYE BYE!

275 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:58pm

My bottom line on all this is as follows:

Anyone can claim anything they like, one way or the other. If they've got verifiable data to support the model (and there appears to be a fairly substantial chunk of data to suggest something 'odd' is happening), so much the better.

But - and this is the key thing - anyone who decides to get all flapping hysterical one way or the other does nothing but harm to his or her position. Two or three lies are enough to cast a position's veracity into doubt, even if it's true. Al Gore's shrieking does as much to discredit the climate change position as does this Monckton and others' fudging and misrepresentation.

We need to find better, more efficient uses for the energy sources we already have; pollution is waste, and waste is inefficiency, and inefficiency costs money, no matter what you may think about the environmental side of it. (For my own part, a nuke-power grid and a switch to LNG or CNG for light vehicles not powered electrically just makes a hell of a lot of sense to me - save the energy-dense fuels for the most productive uses. Pollution, in any form and from any source, degrades the value of the real estate, so knock it off, already, and try to get your neighbors to keep their lots clean, too.)

276 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:31:59pm

re: #257 Anna D

Ma'am, that's hard to do when our party is consistently catering to people whose ideas are as backward as the Muslim extremists who want to kill us.

277 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:32:27pm

I am not nuts about the global warming stuff in general, but I don't like liars either.

278 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:32:40pm

re: #273 brookly red

depends on how you vote...

Well and how many "carbon credits" you can afford?

279 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:32:53pm

re: #266 LGoPs

Humans also exhale CO2. Does that make us pollutants?

Yes. And we are "ugly bags of mostly water".

280 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:33:45pm

re: #276 calcajun

Ma'am, that's hard to do when our party is consistently catering to people whose ideas are as backward as the Muslim extremists who want to kill us.

Quick with the backhand!

281 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:34:01pm

re: #257 Anna D

waaaahh. I don't like the subject! Talk about what I want to talk about! I don't care if this is your blog.... waaaaaaah

282 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:34:12pm

re: #279 Racer X

Yes. And we are "ugly bags of mostly water".

We are not all ugly: Hottest Female Athletes

[Link: wcbstv.com...]

283 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:34:27pm

re: #278 Nevergiveup

Well and how many "carbon credits" you can afford?

as I mentioned before... You may have heard about a leaked memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that questions the EPA findings on CO2 being a “threat to human health”.

284 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:34:39pm

re: #277 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am not nuts about the global warming stuff in general, but I don't like liars either.

It only helps the Al Bores of the world

"see ,,, they have to lie about it to try to discredit my science!"
//

285 z9z99  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:35:20pm

At first, I was fairly accepting of the global warming theory, getting my information from a variety of sources such as RealClimate, and icecap.us. Over time, I became less convinced, being particularly dubious of the "positive feedback" assumption. The issue had to do with water vapor. Sometimes water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and sometimes it is an anti-greenhouse gas, namely when it blocks radiation from reaching the earth. Then I learned that certain types of clouds have a greater effect on albedo than on greenhouse forcing, making the whole feedback assumption seem hopelessly simplified. What was even more puzzing is that, since the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as temperature rises, this alone should contribute to runaway global warming, and life on earth should have been pretty much unlikely starting millennia ago. Then I read a paper by Heinz Hug in which he argued that the IPCC model for global warming overstated the heating forcing effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 by a factor of eighty. He argued that all of the thermal radiation that is absorbed and re-radiated by CO2 is absorbed within 10 meters of the ground. I found the RealClimate discussion of this paper contrived and unconvincing, and was reminded of the proponents of the geocentric universe resorting to theory of epicycles in a futile effort to defend a failing dogma.

So this is what we know:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. The models that attempt to describe the influence of CO2 on temperature don't work very well.
3. The models that attempt to describe the influence of human activity on temperature work even less well.
4. The science is no where near being settled one way or the other.
5. There is a great deal of political capital to be had on both sides of the global warming debate.

286 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:35:48pm

re: #272 zombie

Their main point of contention is that he chose a random starting point for the graph, which made it look like things are trending down. They don't dispute the data in that graph, only that his starting date did not accurately reflect a longer term trend. Then they go and do the exact same "fakery" by presenting their own graph which also has "random" starting point to show that on a different time scale, the trend is going up. But of course, someone else could produce a different graph with a different starting point and different time scale which shows whatever trend you choose.

Sorry, that's not correct at all. The point made by RealClimate is that Monckton's graph uses a time period that is much too short, and starts at a place that does not correspond to the actual data. I think you've missed their point.

287 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:35:56pm

re: #279 Racer X

Yes. And we are "ugly bags of mostly water".

ST:TNG geek!

Youtube Video
288 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:35:56pm

re: #240 Charles

Actually, I'm making a slightly different point, upon which I'll concede I wasn't clear. As Mao said, "A journey of a thousand miles start with a single step." I'm advocating for mapping out the early steps first. We can build forward in time as we accomplish intermediate objectives. Can we get to 100 years right now? Do we have a global framework for getting to 100 years? Do we even have consensus about where we should be in 100 years?

If the jihadists win, the world looks very different in 100 years than anything I'd propose. For that matter, if the creationists win, the world looks quite different than anything I'd envision.

289 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:35:59pm

Isn't Hansen the guy who works at, or near, Columbia (and with, or for, NASA) who was caught with data-tweaks added to his temperature-logging software? This was a year or two ago, I think. Memory's fuzzy, and I don't know if he ever gave a reasonable explanation about why the fudge-factors had been added.

290 NelsFree  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:36:19pm

Say, I was having a conversation with "Classic Liberal" last night along this very subject. I asked him to name a study that indisputably proved man-made global warming. He strung together cherry-picked a few scientific facts and, voila!. SCIENCE!
H'm, I wonder where he is tonight?

291 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:36:19pm

re: #255 Thanos

This was during the days when they closed the reactor that would have kept the rolling brown outs away in Sacramento. (forget the name of the plant)

SMUD, Rancho Seco.....as named in my #260 post....cosmic.......

292 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:36:23pm

re: #278 Nevergiveup

Well and how many "carbon credits" you can afford?

Go to FreeCarbonCreditReport.com---yeeehaa!

293 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:37:00pm

re: #272 zombie

Yes, but what about Monckton's faked trendline?

still nothing like Monckton showed. Instead, he appears to have derived his 'projections' by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 and ignoring the fact that the actual projections accelerate as time goes on, and thus strongly over-estimating the projected changes that are expected now

294 MacGregor  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:37:33pm

Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2

This looks very reasonable. In one of last week's threads, we noticed solar activity correlated nicely with the revised IPCC chart. This seems to concur.

295 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:37:46pm

re: #292 calcajun

Go to FreeCarbonCreditReport.com---yeeehaa!

Are you playing guitar at a rennaisance fair!?!?!

296 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:37:49pm

re: #256 MacGregor

Hansen had already stated that he received pro bono legal help, but did not directly recieve one red cent... It also ought to be noted that the NASA IG agreed that Hansen had been wrongly treated by the NASA public affairs people. If indeed the IG report is true (and no one disclaimed it), then the pro bono legal help was warranted to come from someone.

That Soros, in his anti-Bush tirade, decided that this was one more area at which he could shoot arrows at GWB, then that is a decision Soros made because of Bush, and has nothing to do with the validity of AGW, Dr. Hansen, etc.

This whole effort to smear Dr. Hansen is built on sand.

297 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:37:54pm

re: #266 LGoPs

Humans also exhale CO2. Does that make us pollutants?

Calculations show that if everyone who believed in AGW would stop exhaling, the global warming threat would no longer be a problem.

298 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:37:54pm

re: #223 Charles

Charles -

Imagine the last 100 years without the "Infernal Combustion Engine" - We might be wading in Horse Manure in NY, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore - etc.

-S-re: #228 BlueCanuck

Of course I suck it up. I don't even vacation on the Gulf of Mexico in the winter. Point of fact, some of my earliest memories are of SNOW! That's going back over 30 some years. I might have to live with the climate, doesn't mean I have to appreciate it all the time. ;)

Blue Canuck -

One of My earliest memories is SHOVELING the SNOW that fell in January, 1961 right before JFK was inaugurated. We considered it to be "Normal" at the time - it was called "weather" back then. Dad by that time owned his Second New Car - A "1960 COMET" - not yet a "Mercury" - His Falcon took too long to build.
The US and Canada are "Two Nations/One People" at least as far as the English Speaking Provinces go.
To me - SNOW - as I suspect it is to you - is something to be shoveled - and/or - plowed.

-S-

299 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:38:07pm

re: #292 calcajun

Go to FreeCarbonCreditReport.com---yeeehaa!

only 29.95...

300 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:38:09pm

re: #284 sattv4u2

It only helps the Al Bores of the world

"see ,,, they have to lie about it to try to discredit my science!"
//

Just curious - did you learn the "comma ellipsis" from TFK or was it the other way around?

301 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:38:27pm

re: #271 freetoken

T. Boone prefers wind. Or Oil. Or Hydro. He owns companies in those fields, you see. T. Boone may be a freak, but he's a financially savvy one!

302 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:39:06pm

re: #291 IslandLibertarian

This was during the days when they closed the reactor that would have kept the rolling brown outs away in Sacramento. (forget the name of the plant)

SMUD, Rancho Seco.....as named in my #260 post....cosmic.......

Right that's the one. Thanks

303 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:39:07pm

re: #301 ArmyWife

T. Boone prefers wind. Or Oil. Or Hydro. He owns companies in those fields, you see. T. Boone may be a freak, but he's a financially savvy one!

Buy straw hats in winter.

304 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:39:10pm

re: #295 sattv4u2

Are you playing guitar at a rennaisance fair!?!?!

I love those guys...but my favorite is the news guy reporting on a robbery that slams into a pole

305 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:39:23pm

re: #271 freetoken

JCM ♥ Boone Pickens!

We have safe reactor technology now. No need to wait. Start building.

We have plenty of natural gas to bridge to the next gen. energy source. Start drilling.

Something we should be doing for energy independence environmental and T. Boone aside.

306 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:39:41pm

re: #300 Cato the Elder

Just curious - did you learn the "comma ellipsis" from TFK or was it the other way around?

You're looking at ,,,, the original!

(been doing it since my Yahoo chat days lo those many many years ago!)

307 LGoPs  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:39:59pm

re: #297 gmsc

Calculations show that if everyone who believed in AGW would stop exhaling, the global warming threat would no longer be a problem.

I like that solution.
/ *evil grin*

308 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:40:02pm

re: #303 Guanxi88

I think I might rather wear white shoes after labor day!

309 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:40:43pm

re: #308 ArmyWife

I think I might rather wear white shoes after labor day!

It's investment, not fashion, advice. Buy before there's a demand for the thing for which you anticipate future demand.

310 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:40:50pm

re: #305 jcm

We have safe reactor technology now. No need to wait. Start building.

We have plenty of natural gas to bridge to the next gen. energy source. Start drilling.

Something we should be doing for energy independence environmental and T. Boone aside.

not gonna happen...we are headed straight on to the ultimate crisis...people will die for their misguided ideology

311 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:40:56pm

re: #295 sattv4u2

Are you playing guitar at a rennaisance fair!?!?!

re: #304 albusteve

I love those guys...but my favorite is the news guy reporting on a robbery that slams into a pole

Youtube Video
312 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:41:18pm

Good debate. Nice to be in a room with so many thoughtful people. Anna, if you thought Charles dedicated this site to only Islamists you are sorely mistaken. It is a reflection of his interests. That is what all hear should remember. If you don't like the topic, don't join in the fray, or post a link on the front page.

This is Charles' house. (I know, I tracked mud in a couple of times...)

313 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:41:41pm

re: #307 LGoPs

If we all stopped breathing for five minutes each day...the results would be significant.


and now we return to the History Channel's "Life After People: the Series"

314 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:41:42pm

Temperatures are going up.
They have gone up before.
The question that is before us asks whether mankind is the cause.
Temperatures are rising on mars, also.
I don't think we are responsible for mars' climate change.

315 NelsFree  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:03pm

re: #292 calcajun

Go to FreeCarbonCreditReport.com---yeeehaa!

If you sign up, you have to accept bailout money, though.
/

316 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:11pm

re: #310 albusteve

not gonna happen...we are headed straight on to the ultimate crisis...people will die for their misguided ideology

Do you realize that your response to this one item is the perfect, all-purpose response? It fits everything - constitution as suicide pact, capitulation to jihadists, alignment with Euro-fascists, anti-vaxx, etc.

317 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:21pm

re: #312 coquimbojoe

Hey Joe!

Nice to see ya!

318 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:38pm

re: #308 ArmyWife

I think I might rather wear white shoes after labor day!

Not...that!

319 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:43pm

re: #313 calcajun

If we all stopped breathing for five minutes each day...the results would be significant.

and now we return to the History Channel's "Life After People: the Series"

Love that show! Very morbid.

320 WhiteRasta  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:52pm

Hoe come Nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere does not affect the weather, but CO2 that makes up less than 1 %, does affect the weather?

I call BS on the whole CO2 thing.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist.)

321 NelsFree  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:42:52pm

re: #308 ArmyWife

I think I might rather wear white shoes after labor day!

You could wear those BOOTS of yours anytime!

322 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:43:12pm

re: #295 sattv4u2

Are you playing guitar at a rennaisance fair!?!?!

re: #304 albusteve

I love those guys...but my favorite is the news guy reporting on a robbery that slams into a pole

I hate those guys.

Youtube Video
323 coquimbojoe  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:43:50pm

re: #317 jcm

Hey Joe!

Nice to see ya!

Hey there sir, how is your family? And, the great North Wet? All good? I hope so.

324 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:43:52pm

re: #296 freetoken

Hansen had already stated that he received pro bono legal help, but did not directly recieve one red cent... It also ought to be noted that the NASA IG agreed that Hansen had been wrongly treated by the NASA public affairs people. If indeed the IG report is true (and no one disclaimed it), then the pro bono legal help was warranted to come from someone.

That Soros, in his anti-Bush tirade, decided that this was one more area at which he could shoot arrows at GWB, then that is a decision Soros made because of Bush, and has nothing to do with the validity of AGW, Dr. Hansen, etc.

This whole effort to smear Dr. Hansen is built on sand.

I agree. Soros gives lots of money to lots of people for lots of purposes. There's nothing to these accusations. I'm actually a little embarrassed that I linked to that bogus Soros-Hansen story at LGF years ago.

Live and learn.

325 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:44:07pm

I still have a drawer full of unused thermal socks and underwear I bought after TIME MAGAZINE warned me of "The Coming Ice Age" back in the 70's!

326 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:44:24pm

"The Natural" is on. My favorite baseball movie.

327 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:45:09pm

re: #320 WhiteRasta

Hoe come Nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere does not affect the weather, but CO2 that makes up less than 1 %, does affect the weather?

I call BS on the whole CO2 thing.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist.)

/there are no nitrogen producers to tax.

328 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:45:29pm

re: #319 Guanxi88

Love that show! Very morbid.

I know. All my kids and I sat and watched that show and laughed. We felt like the freakin' Aadams Family.

329 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:45:35pm

re: #316 Guanxi88

Do you realize that your response to this one item is the perfect, all-purpose response? It fits everything - constitution as suicide pact, capitulation to jihadists, alignment with Euro-fascists, anti-vaxx, etc.

yes...we are weakening ourselves bickering over GW, while our enemies put their sights on us...BO is a total fool and Europe is ready to blow...etc etc...GW doesn't mean shit right now...there are quick fixes denied the people...I hate the feds

330 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:45:39pm

re: #325 sattv4u2

I still have a drawer full of unused thermal socks and underwear I bought after TIME MAGAZINE warned me of "The Coming Ice Age" back in the 70's!

As I recall ,,, the "science" was indisputable and a consensus back then too!

331 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:45:41pm

re: #323 coquimbojoe

Hey there sir, how is your family? And, the great North Wet? All good? I hope so.

Families is good, latest acquisition (foster girl) is settling in nicely, one of the happiest little girls I've every seen.

With all this global warming I've had to keep the fire burning this week.
/;-P

332 lawhawk  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:45:42pm

If COx is the reason for global warming and the concentration in the atmosphere continues growing as the modelers claim, what happened during the past million years?


The oscillation between ice ages and interglacial periods is the dominant feature of Earth’s climate for the last million years. But the computer models that predict significant global warming from carbon dioxide cannot reproduce these temperature changes. This failure to reproduce the most significant aspect of terrestrial climate reveals an incomplete understanding of the climate system, if not a nearly complete ignorance.

Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But our knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration’s announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of human civilization as we know it.

333 WhiteRasta  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:46:14pm

re: #327 brookly red

Aaah, silly me!~

334 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:46:19pm

re: #326 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

"The Natural" is on. My favorite baseball movie.

That's a canard.
A what?
A prevarication?
Huh?
A lie.

335 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:46:21pm

re: #286 Charles

Sorry, that's not correct at all. The point made by RealClimate is that Monckton's graph uses a time period that is much too short, and starts at a place that does not correspond to the actual data. I think you've missed their point.

But what I was trying to say is that someone else could just as validly claim that RealClimate's scale has too far short of a time frame. I know that they're saying this his time-scale (7 years) is too short, but what makes their time-scale (60 years) any more valid? When we're speaking of geologic-scale changes, one could argue that any represetnation of the data on anything less than a 100,000-year scale is "fake" because it misrepresents or hides a longer-term trend.

336 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:46:25pm

re: #325 sattv4u2

I still have a drawer full of unused thermal socks and underwear I bought after TIME MAGAZINE warned me of "The Coming Ice Age" back in the 70's!

Just for your nostalgia . . .

337 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:46:30pm

re: #324 Charles

Soros, in his efforts to bring down GWB, used the shotgun approach to funding. If it moved... and could be related to GWB... he shot it.

The joys of being a billionaire.

338 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:47:18pm

re: #235 Flyers1974

Speaking of the second amendment, I'm probably an oddity. I'm politically pro-gun, personally have no problems with guns. Nonetheless, the wording of the 2nd amendment is pure gibberish.

Flyers1974 -

OK, let us go through the language. "A Well Regulated Militia" - in the 1770's/1780's - included every Caucasian MALE able to bear arms. The concept has expanded since then. "Afro-Saxons" are included as are FEMALES.
The Basic Concept is - A Government Afraid of it's People is OK - A People - Afraid of it's Government - IS NOT!

-S-

339 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:47:20pm

re: #321 NelsFree

You weren't supposed to tell. ;)

340 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:47:32pm

re: #336 gmsc

Just for your nostalgia . . .

Thanks. I wonder if I still have the reciept so I can return the socks and undies!

341 WhiteRasta  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:48:12pm

Goodnight and G-d Bless.

342 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:48:38pm

re: #341 WhiteRasta

night!

343 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:48:48pm

re: #319 Guanxi88

Love that show! Very morbid.

If I were left alive I'd live near the Hoover Dam, and make sure those mollusks don't blog the water intake tunnels, and then I'd be set with unlimited electricity and freezers?

344 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:48:57pm

re: #320 WhiteRasta

Hoe come Nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere does not affect the weather, but CO2 that makes up less than 1 %, does affect the weather?

I call BS on the whole CO2 thing.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist.)

Nitrogen is somewhat transparent to infra red radiation, whereas Co2, water vapor etc. is not. The heat that comes to the earth is solar radiation across a spectrum that easily penetrates most of the above. The heat that radiates from the earth back to the black night sky is in the form of infrared radiation, which gets reflected back when there's more Co2 and water vapor etc. in the air. In other words heat that would normally escape into space is reflected back.

One of the most convincing things about the AGW data is that it's not daytime temps where you see the change, it's in average overnight temps.

345 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:49:09pm

re: #327 brookly red

/there are no nitrogen producers to tax.

What do you think fertilizer is?

346 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:49:39pm

re: #341 WhiteRasta

Goodnight and G-d Bless.

Red Skelton?

347 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:49:47pm

"Greenland will turn into temperate farmland and we're all going to die". -- Dennis Miller.

348 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:49:52pm

Yeah ,,, I think I'm gonna hit the recliner couch also

A cold beer
TV remote
I should be out like a light in an hour!

349 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:11pm

re: #343 Nevergiveup

If I were left alive I'd live near the Hoover Dam, and make sure those mollusks don't blog the water intake tunnels, and then I'd be set with unlimited electricity and freezers?

Mollusk blog

350 MacGregor  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:25pm

re: #324 Charles

I agree. Soros gives lots of money to lots of people for lots of purposes. There's nothing to these accusations. I'm actually a little embarrassed that I linked to that bogus Soros-Hansen story at LGF years ago.

Live and learn.

Interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

351 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:27pm

re: #345 screaming_eagle

What do you think fertilizer is?

oh, great you telling me were gonna pay a shit tax too?

352 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:29pm

re: #293 Thanos

Yes, but what about Monckton's faked trendline?

Yes, I understand that -- he drew a straight line from the current data to the end-point of the projection, rather than an upward accelerating curve. Admittedly that is not the correct way to do it. "Fake," if you will, though in a fairly minor way.

I'm not defending Monkton in every way -- yes, what he did was fudgy and representationally deceptive. I'm only arguing that many of the folks on the other sicde engage in the exact same kind of fudging.

Admittedly, this is not the best defense -- "You did it too!" -- but it is applicable when hypocrisy is afoot.

353 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:30pm

re: #335 zombie

When we're speaking of geologic-scale changes, one could argue that any represetnation of the data on anything less than a 100,000-year scale is "fake" because it misrepresents or hides a longer-term trend.

Because the period of interest is that of human civilization - a human life, a family dyansty, the longevity of a nation - it is natural that we try to find what changes will be like in terms of, say, 100 years.

Your claim that anything less than 100,00-year scale is "fake" ... is absurd. The orbital driving of approximately 40,000 years period (much less than 100,000) is clearly seen in the record.

354 NelsFree  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:32pm

re: #339 ArmyWife

You weren't supposed to tell. ;)

I know, it was classifried. You looked classy, and my eyeballs fried.
/

355 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:44pm

Oh Noes! Does this disprove evolution or at least evolution of males?

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

356 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:50:53pm

re: #332 lawhawk

Because C02 is not the only reason?

357 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:51:34pm

re: #351 brookly red

oh, great you telling me were gonna pay a shit tax too?

Just for the chickens.

358 sattv4u2  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:51:56pm

re: #347 UncleRancher

"Greenland will turn into temperate farmland and we're all going to die". -- Dennis Miller.

Think about that for a moment

It was called GREENland by it's founders
Today it's one of the WHITEST and coldest places on earth!
Do you think it's founders were being sarcastic,, or has it changed that much in the intervening eaons!?!?!

359 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:52:06pm

then, of course, there are the "problems" associated with the statistical models...Steve McIntyre at the website climateaudit.org addresses some of the issues. (but it's from a stats/math perspective..)

360 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:52:08pm

re: #355 ArmyWife

Oh Noes! Does this disprove evolution or at least evolution of males?

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

Fat chicks were teh hot back in the day!

361 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:52:08pm

re: #351 brookly red

oh, great you telling me were gonna pay a shit tax too?

That why Algore is fat. He's holding his in.
/

362 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:52:51pm

re: #355 ArmyWife

Oh Noes! Does this disprove evolution or at least evolution of males?

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

If Man ever does "evolve" then mankind might just "peter" out? So to speak.

363 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:52:52pm

re: #361 screaming_eagle

That why Algore is fat. He's holding his in.
/

Every time I see him, he sure seems to be letting it out.
;)

364 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:53:03pm

re: #352 zombie

I agree that it's afoot on both sides of the issue. The side sowing panic now! buttons is just as bad as the denialist camp.

365 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:53:13pm

re: #358 sattv4u2

Lying real estate developers are nothing new.

366 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:53:34pm

re: #358 sattv4u2

Think about that for a moment

It was called GREENland by it's founders
Today it's one of the WHITEST and coldest places on earth!
Do you think it's founders were being sarcastic,, or has it changed that much in the intervening eaons!?!?!

They called their native country ICEland. I think they wanted to keep away the Viking marauders and misdirect them elsewhere.

367 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:53:45pm

re: #358 sattv4u2

Think about that for a moment

It was called GREENland by it's founders
Today it's one of the WHITEST and coldest places on earth!
Do you think it's founders were being sarcastic,, or has it changed that much in the intervening eaons!?!?!

See, I told you there was something to it.

368 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:53:51pm

re: #358 sattv4u2

Think about that for a moment

It was called GREENland by it's founders
Today it's one of the WHITEST and coldest places on earth!
Do you think it's founders were being sarcastic,, or has it changed that much in the intervening eaons!?!?!

actually they called it Greenland to encourage colonization.

369 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:53:59pm

re: #355 ArmyWife

Oh Noes! Does this disprove evolution or at least evolution of males?

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

We're all neanderthals....

370 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:54:07pm

re: #320 WhiteRasta

Hoe come Nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere does not affect the weather, but CO2 that makes up less than 1 %, does affect the weather?

I call BS on the whole CO2 thing.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist.)

Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas; it does not trap infrared radiation. CO2 does trap infrared radiation and prevents it from being radiated out into space. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would be unlivable.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more of the sun's warmth is retained. This is not controversial at all, by the way.

One of the reasons why Venus is so incredibly hot is that its atmosphere is so high in CO2.

371 lawhawk  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:54:22pm

re: #272 zombie

Further, isn't the whole craziness about the hockey stick graph showing temperature changes itself the result of a random timepoint choice.

Just when exactly do we mark the beginning point of any of the graphs showing temperature and COx concentrations?

There are any number of places - dependent entirely upon the technologies involved and when they came into general usage.

Core samples showing COx levels are reliable going back thousands of years. Then there are direct readings, which are more recent. The readings include both those at discrete locations around the globe, and still more recently, there are satellite readings that can show readings for the entire planet.

Pick and choose - and you can get a graph showing whatever it is that you want, but the end user has to keep in mind that even all these data points are just a fraction of this planet's history, and we have barely scratched the surface of what we know about the mechanisms that drive the climate.

372 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:54:29pm

re: #360 Alouette

Fat Full figured chicks were teh hot back in the day!

FIFY

373 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:54:38pm

Globe warms / green belt expands to northern and southern latitudes / more plants using more C02 / less C02 / globe cools / one ice age coming right up....in say 10,000 years......

374 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:54:45pm

Alright, I'll volunteer to come to Monkton's defense here. I think the criticisms of the graph are particularly disingenuous. His letter to the NYT references this full report (which he wrote).

[Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org...]

The report (and the letter) make the point that temps have declined for 7 years. Obviously, he is not saying that it's more than 7 years -- his point is that 7 years isn't just weather; it's long enough to be a problem for the CO2 believers.

He's right. A 7 year decline is a bit long for a "pause" in global warming and their rebranding it as "climate change" is an effort to slip away from the egg on their faces. If this goes on much longer, they're in deep kimchee.

So, Monkton starts the graphs 7 years ago and he uses the IPCC's predicted slopes to plot their projections.

If that's lying, I'm the queen of England.

375 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:55:23pm

re: #366 Alouette

They called their native country ICEland. I think they wanted to keep away the Viking marauders and misdirect them elsewhere.

Or they could have arrived in summer months at Greenland and winter months in iceland.

376 J.S.  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:55:40pm

re: #371 lawhawk

interesting website here (climate audit.org)

377 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:55:43pm

re: #361 screaming_eagle

That why Algore is fat. He's holding his in.
/

Fatman


Youtube Video
378 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:55:54pm

re: #360 Alouette

Fat chicks were teh hot back in the day!

They made the rockin' world go 'round.

379 IslandLibertarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:56:13pm

re: #358 sattv4u2

It was called Greenland as a promotional tool.

380 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:56:33pm

re: #355 ArmyWife

Oh Noes! Does this disprove evolution or at least evolution of males?

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

Nope. It proves we're pigs.

One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then there's one with slight defects;
One, perhaps, whose truthfulness you doubt a bit.
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!

-My Fair lady

381 Dianna  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:56:37pm

re: #366 Alouette

They called their native country ICEland. I think they wanted to keep away the Viking marauders and misdirect them elsewhere.

The Icelanders were the vikings.

382 Dianna  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:57:08pm

re: #379 IslandLibertarian

It was called Greenland as a promotional tool.

Erik the Red and Leif Ericcson were nothing if not creative.

383 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:57:16pm

re: #360 Alouette

Fat chicks were teh hot back in the day!

They are back....

Leonard Nimoy Full Body Project.

NSFW. Art nudes.

384 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:57:20pm

re: #352 zombie

They showed a graph with his start point, and he was still wrong.

385 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:57:26pm
386 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:57:55pm

re: #378 Guanxi88

They made the rockin' world go 'round.

I'm sure the lyrics to their songs were along the lines of "I Like Big Butts".

387 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:58:15pm

Actually the greenhouse effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared with the effect produced by H20. I've got a reference buried here in the computer somewhere if I could just find it.

388 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:58:43pm
Even if one assumes that the baseline should be the year 2002 making no allowance for internal variability (which makes no sense whatsoever), you would get the following graph:

still nothing like Monckton showed. Instead, he appears to have derived his 'projections' by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 and ignoring the fact that the actual projections accelerate as time goes on, and thus strongly over-estimating the projected changes that are expected now

What data did they fudge?

389 mrkwong  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:58:50pm

What we KNOW is that the pro-AGW brigade have been playing games with smoothing data and cherry-picking the ranges in order to show the trends they want to show. A sixty-year trend carefully avoids the warm 1930s.

390 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 5:59:30pm

re: #382 Dianna

Erik the Red and Leif Ericcson were nothing if not creative.

What's "Glengarry Glen Ross" in Norwegian?

391 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:00:11pm

re: #389 mrkwong

What we KNOW is that the pro-AGW brigade have been playing games with smoothing data and cherry-picking the ranges in order to show the trends they want to show. A sixty-year trend carefully avoids the warm 1930s.

It shows warming when human activity waned during the depression. And cooling during the post war boom.

392 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:00:30pm

re: #386 calcajun

I'm sure the lyrics to their songs were along the lines of "I Like Big Butts".

Youtube Video
393 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:00:54pm
394 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:01:21pm

re: #392 swamprat

[Video]


Another classic...

Troglodyte

Youtube Video
395 lostlakehiker  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:01:33pm

re: #150 doppelganglander

If I understand correctly, the alarmists are concerned that large swaths of the area around the equator will become uninhabitable and unable to produce food. OTOH, northern latitudes will become verdant and productive. So I don't think the problem is really the food supply as much as the food distribution, not to mention what will become of all the people around the equator. They can't really do as their ancestors did when the Saraha became a desert -- i.e. wander off to greener pastures (literally).

There are many concerns, some of them sensible, others chicken-little-ish. On the sensible side, a rise of a meter in sea level would more or less drown some Pacific island nations, it would make New Orleans and Galveston untenable, it would greatly complicate the defense of London and the Netherlands from North Sea gales, and it would ruin the livelihoods of several million people in Bangladesh by salt-watering their rice paddies.
Even a few centimeters rise would have real and definite costs. A rise of several meters would cause major problems for many nations.

As things stand now, Vietnam is warmer than optimal for growing rice, and the rice crop suffers from heat waves. If (when?) these become more common, yields will fall further. The same goes for Bangladesh, Thailand, and the Philippines.

On the other hand, there are costs to switching to less carbon intensive fuels. These costs are bearable, amounting to a few percent of GDP extended over several decades, but that sort of money is hardly negligible. Lomborg has argued that vaccinations and malaria control measures would save more lives at less cost than heading off AGW. He's right from the perspective of an economist---it's part of their professional mindset to steeply discount future earnings. But as we have just seen, the future isn't necessarily richer than the present to the extent that the next generation can cheerfully absorb any cost that it must face when the time comes that we just have to do something about AGW.

What if things don't go so hot, (pun intentional), and the future is kind of poor? We could see people grimly getting by on coal, caught between AGW and dire poverty. And so I part ways with Lomborg and conclude that prudence requires putting together a safety net of policies today: more nuclear power, more wind power, increased R&D into solar, and increased emphasis on efficiency in home heating, home lighting, and transportation.

396 cronus  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:01:53pm

To paraphrase Julia Sweeney, why don't we just put on the "accepting AGW" glasses for just a little while and see how it goooeeesss.

If you don't immediately conclude that by acknowledging AGW you have to embrace global socialism it's easier to formulate proactive arguments.

Observe how effective Sarah Palin is by instead of contesting AGW, showing how unless we have an aggressive switch to CNG we can't adjust our energy use quickly enough to meet the goals the IPCC says are necessary. She completely takes the upper hand and puts the onus on rethinking our energy mix instead of defaulting to caps or taxes which is the natural liberal solution. It also helps beg the question about what exactly the Obama administration is doing to improve our no or low CO2 energy mix.

Some would have you delay exploration and development in the federal offshore of Alaska over concerns related to global warming and its effects in the Arctic. First of all let me make it clear that the State of Alaska understands the effects of climate change in the cryosphere. We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington. The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us.

Many believe that in order to mitigate these long term and systematic changes it will require a national and global effort to decrease the release of human produced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, simply waiting for low carbon emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing CO2 that will be required under most credible climate change models, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled scenarios. Meeting these goals will require a dramatic increase, in the very near term, to preferred available fuels - including natural gas – that have a very low carbon footprint and that can be used within the existing energy infrastructure. These available fuels are required to supply the nation’s energy needs during the transition to green energy alternatives.

397 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:02:17pm

re: #390 calcajun

What's "Glengarry Glen Ross" in Norwegian?

Much easier to say than it would be in Chinese. I sat through a three hour meeting with a team of English-speaking Chinese on "curricular reform" and couldn't keep a straight face for the first 5 minutes, then found the remaining 2 hours and 55 minutes to be tedious. It was like an SNL sketch, it was so repetitive.

398 Dianna  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:02:37pm

re: #390 calcajun

What's "Glengarry Glen Ross" in Norwegian?

Not a clue. What is it?

399 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:02:44pm

re: #374 Pythagoras


He's right. A 7 year decline is a bit long for a "pause" in global warming and their rebranding it as "climate change" is an effort to slip away from the egg on their faces.

No, his not "right".

Look at the record of temps since the late 1800's. You will see that there is not only quite a variation from year to year, but that in any given 7 year period there is quite a variety of responses.

There is so much written about this stuff... putting links here become superfluous after a while... but the most important, IMO, concept to grasp is that oceans directly affect the timing and lag of temperature changes.

Also, for some reason, in the denier-community there is a strawman worshipped that somehow the climatology specialists overlook the Sun. The truth is quite the opposite. E.g., the quiescent sun of last year and half, small as the changes may be, are not ignored.

400 mrkwong  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:03:16pm

re: #387 UncleRancher

Actually the greenhouse effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared with the effect produced by H20. I've got a reference buried here in the computer somewhere if I could just find it.

Oh, absolutely true, but it's always been received wisdom among the AGW crowd that water vapor was 'natural' but all growth in atmospheric CO2 was manmade.

That might not fit too well with actual, real-world observations:
[Link: www.drroyspencer.com...]

401 brookly red  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:03:54pm

re: #398 Dianna

Not a clue. What is it?

Glengarry Glen Ross

402 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:04:20pm

re: #391 jcm

And cooling during the post war boom.


When unregulated burning of coal and oil increased aerosols (such as those based on sulfer.)

403 zombie  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:04:24pm

re: #353 freetoken

Because the period of interest is that of human civilization - a human life, a family dyansty, the longevity of a nation - it is natural that we try to find what changes will be like in terms of, say, 100 years.

Your claim that anything less than 100,00-year scale is "fake" ... is absurd. The orbital driving of approximately 40,000 years period (much less than 100,000) is clearly seen in the record.

I'm not saying that anything less than 100,00-year scale is "fake" -- I only gave that as an example of the kind of thing that could be claimed. Adjust the number to whatever scale one think is appropriate, to match what one is trying to illustrate.

But yes, your first point is germane: we are obsessively focusing on the last 100 years because that is the time-period during which the Industrial Revolution pumped out the most air pollution. But focusing on the time period in which we were "actors" is no different than the blonde who looks for her lost keys under the streetlamp "because that's where the light is" rather than looking where she actually lost them.

If we see -- as we do -- that in the past, the distant past, and the far-distant past, that temperatures have fluctuated wildly, with planet-wide Ice Ages coming and going, with mass extinctions probably related to climate change, with sea levels going up and down at huge scales we can barely even imagine (North America connected to Asia; California's Central Valley a vast inland sea; etc.), and all of this happened long before man had any effect on the climate (or before man even yet existed), then how can we confidently claim that the changes we see today have any different origin or significance as compared to the climate change of the pre-Industrial distant past?

404 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:05:02pm

re: #392 swamprat

That is just so...wrong./

405 Liberal Classic  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:05:19pm

re: #387 UncleRancher

Actually the greenhouse effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared with the effect produced by H20. I've got a reference buried here in the computer somewhere if I could just find it.

While it's true that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide accounts for 10-20% of greenhouse effect yet it only makes up a fraction of a percent of the atmosphere. This is not a negligible amount.

406 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:05:45pm

re: #374 Pythagoras

Alright, I'll volunteer to come to Monkton's defense here. I think the criticisms of the graph are particularly disingenuous. His letter to the NYT references this full report (which he wrote).

[Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org...]

The report (and the letter) make the point that temps have declined for 7 years. Obviously, he is not saying that it's more than 7 years -- his point is that 7 years isn't just weather; it's long enough to be a problem for the CO2 believers.

He's right. A 7 year decline is a bit long for a "pause" in global warming and their rebranding it as "climate change" is an effort to slip away from the egg on their faces. If this goes on much longer, they're in deep kimchee.

So, Monkton starts the graphs 7 years ago and he uses the IPCC's predicted slopes to plot their projections.

If that's lying, I'm the queen of England.

Well I call foul on that queenie.

For years the AGW denialists have harped about solar variation and how it was the real engine and that the IPCC was ignoring cycles when they weren't in reality. We've had a downtrend in sunspots and a decrease in solar radiation. If you account for all factors including sunspots you would still expect the temps to go down in your AGW model with decreased solar radiation the past few years. That's exactly why Monckton chose that period. When the sunspots start up again we could very well go into an even warmer cycle, it remains to be seen.

407 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:05:47pm

re: #398 Dianna

Not a clue. What is it?

It was a joke--Leif and Eric as Viking realtors having to move properties.

408 Dianna  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:06:41pm

re: #401 brookly red

Glengarry Glen Ross

That's what I thought, but I was hoping for some of those letters with slashes through them or something.

409 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:06:43pm

re: #396 cronus

But she's just a goofy religious nut!
(who runs her state with amazing skill)
She wants to ban books!
(but never did, or want to)
She's stupid
(but effective)
And a bigot
(who married an eskimo)

410 flyers1974  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:06:45pm

re: #338 Dr. Shalit

Flyers1974 -

OK, let us go through the language. "A Well Regulated Militia" - in the 1770's/1780's - included every Caucasian MALE able to bear arms. The concept has expanded since then. "Afro-Saxons" are included as are FEMALES.
The Basic Concept is - A Government Afraid of it's People is OK - A People - Afraid of it's Government - IS NOT!

-S-

Have to go - Stalin, the Nazis and the West is on PBS. Nothing wrong with your basic concept. Nor am I saying this is not the basic concept of the second amendment. What I question, is whether the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual the right to bear arms separate from belonging to a militia. Obviously, the SC says this is an individual right.

411 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:07:14pm

re: #407 calcajun

Viking realtors

Now THERE'S a Monty Python sketch that never got made.

412 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:08:28pm

re: #400 mrkwong


[Link: www.drroyspencer.com...]

A well known proponent of ID, btw.

413 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:08:41pm
414 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:09:28pm

re: #413 buzzsawmonkey

They could be quaffing horns of mead while selling plots of verdant mead.

I've got this vision of them selling developments in areas they haven't conquered yet, as a way to raise seed capital for construction.

415 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:10:02pm

re: #387 UncleRancher

Actually the greenhouse effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule compared with the effect produced by H20. I've got a reference buried here in the computer somewhere if I could just find it.

Here it is...

416 Wendya  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:10:23pm

re: #145 freetoken

Oh yes... linking to one of Monckton's favorite suck-ups (Watts) on a LGF thread about Monckton...

A classic.

As opposed to citing a blog (realclimate.org) that was founded by the gentleman who gave us the Hockey Stick? Isn't that like saying Bush is evil and then quoting Kos as a source?

417 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:10:50pm

re: #410 flyers1974

Have to go - Stalin, the Nazis and the West is on PBS. Nothing wrong with your basic concept. Nor am I saying this is not the basic concept of the second amendment. What I question, is whether the 2nd amendment guarantees the individual the right to bear arms separate from belonging to a militia. Obviously, the SC says this is an individual right.

The comma separates the clauses (grammar has changed a bit), the phrase "the right of the people" occurs in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amends and is clearly in context an individual right.

418 A Kiwi Infidel  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:10:52pm

Well, heres reason for some Global warming, its the 100 hottest women according to Maxim Magazine, and then, having melted a few glaciers, we have an Ice Age moment when we see, at #93, yup, you got it, Michelle Obamama.

Break out the thermals......

419 cronus  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:10:56pm

re: #409 swamprat

But she's just a goofy religious nut!
(who runs her state with amazing skill)
She wants to ban books!
(but never did, or want to)
She's stupid
(but effective)
And a bigot
(who married an eskimo)

/And remember that she is also the natural heir to the "anti-intellectual" tradition of the Republican Party

420 calcajun  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:10:56pm

re: #411 Guanxi88

Now THERE'S a Monty Python sketch that never got made.

This as close as they got:

Youtube Video
421 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:11:01pm

re: #413 buzzsawmonkey

They could be quaffing horns of mead while selling plots of verdant mead.

Licensed for dancing!

422 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:11:19pm

re: #414 Guanxi88

I've got this vision of them selling developments in areas they haven't conquered yet, as a way to raise seed capital for construction.

Time share settlements. You only pay rent on the property while you survive!

423 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:11:33pm

re: #383 jcm

They are back....

Leonard Nimoy Full Body Project.

NSFW. Art nudes.

Ugh! If he takes photos like that, no wonder Nero wanted to blow up his planet.

/Star Trek joke

424 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:11:46pm

re: #422 swamprat

Time share settlements. You only pay rent on the property while you survive!

I think the Mongols collected taxes on that system.

425 Guanxi88  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:12:15pm

re: #420 calcajun

I remember it well. "I wanted the kids to get ahead"

426 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:12:19pm

re: #399 freetoken

No, his not "right".

Look at the record of temps since the late 1800's. You will see that there is not only quite a variation from year to year, but that in any given 7 year period there is quite a variety of responses.

There is so much written about this stuff... putting links here become superfluous after a while... but the most important, IMO, concept to grasp is that oceans directly affect the timing and lag of temperature changes.

Also, for some reason, in the denier-community there is a strawman worshipped that somehow the climatology specialists overlook the Sun. The truth is quite the opposite. E.g., the quiescent sun of last year and half, small as the changes may be, are not ignored.

Or you could look at the record of temps going back to when the Vikings colonized Greenland (and not the discredited Hockey-Stick, but a real one that shows the Little Ice Age). Seven years of cooling is a problem, not because 7 years is a long trend, but because the CO2 beleivers have been screaming that we're on the bring of a tipping point (and in a lot less than 7 years). They're the ones who are talking short time frames and it's gonna be the end of them.

Anyone want to make a gentleman's bet on Al Gore prediction that the North Pole will be ice free in 5 years?

Image: N_timeseries.png

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

427 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:13:05pm

re: #416 Wendya

As opposed to citing a blog (realclimate.org) that was founded by the gentleman who gave us the Hockey Stick? Isn't that like saying Bush is evil and then quoting Kos as a source?

No, it's saying that Monckton misrepresented the data, and the website I linked proves it.

428 Liberal Classic  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:13:08pm

re: #400 mrkwong

Oh, absolutely true, but it's always been received wisdom among the AGW crowd that water vapor was 'natural' but all growth in atmospheric CO2 was manmade.

That might not fit too well with actual, real-world observations:
[Link: www.drroyspencer.com...]

It comes as no great surprise to me that Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is also a proponent of intelligent design.

The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer
Faith Based Evolution by Dr. Roy Spencer.

429 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:13:09pm

re: #360 Alouette

Fat chicks were the hot back in the day!

Okay, forgive me...Joy Behar joke...but funny

"Whaddya mean I can't have the lasagna. I'm posing with Caravaggio in two days, if I don't get some pounds on me, I'm history!"

430 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:13:11pm

re: #419 cronus

/And remember that she is also the natural heir to the "anti-intellectual" tradition of the Republican Party

I quite believe she would manage to piss off the republicans just as thoroughly as she has pissed off the democrats.

431 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:14:05pm

re: #403 zombie

then how can we confidently claim that the changes we see today have any different origin or significance as compared to the climate change of the pre-Industrial distant past?

Conservation of Energy.

Put simply, we are making the atmosphere more opaque to IR. The Earth wants to reach equilibrium with the space that surrounds it. Inhibiting the flow of energy from the surface (without decrease in incoming energy) will raise the temperature of the surface until the outgoing radiation can balance the inflowing energy.

All of that said... with no need to reference any paleoclimate record.

The paleoclimate record is needed to try and determine how much, how fast, and where.

432 lostlakehiker  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:14:20pm

re: #320 WhiteRasta

Hoe come Nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere does not affect the weather, but CO2 that makes up less than 1 %, does affect the weather?

I call BS on the whole CO2 thing.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist.)

Let's think this through. Glass makes up 99.99 percent of sunglasses. Silvering makes up 0.01 percent. The silvering nevertheless affects the amount of light reaching your eyes.

Some substances reflect or absorb light. Other substances allow light to pass with very little loss. Nitrogen is a good example. IN THE VISIBLE SPECTRUM, so is CO2. But in the IR, CO2 is somewhat opaque, while nitrogen is still pretty transparent. If you could see in the IR, it'd be plain as the nose on your face how this works. You can't, but with the right instruments, you can.

There is much about AGW that is badly understood and open to debate. Whether CO2 absorbs IR radiation is well understood and not open to debate. Far less is it open to be tagged as "BS."

You will be a more effective proponent for your own position when you study up on the basic science. And since we're here in lizard kingdom mainly to defend straight thinking and straight talk, across the board, I hope you get better at arguing your side of the debate---even though I think you're wrong. We need straight thinking and then straight talk more than we need another voice crying the (somewhat well founded) alarm about AGW.

433 A Kiwi Infidel  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:14:37pm

re: #426 Pythagoras

Or you could look at the record of temps going back to when the Vikings colonized Greenland (and not the discredited Hockey-Stick, but a real one that shows the Little Ice Age). Seven years of cooling is a problem, not because 7 years is a long trend, but because the CO2 beleivers have been screaming that we're on the bring of a tipping point (and in a lot less than 7 years). They're the ones who are talking short time frames and it's gonna be the end of them.

Anyone want to make a gentleman's bet on Al Gore prediction that the North Pole will be ice free in 5 years?

[Link: nsidc.org...]

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

Well he was sorta right but it froze back up again. Its called winter.

434 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:14:38pm

re: #401 brookly red

Glengarry Glen Ross

re: #408 Dianna

That's what I thought, but I was hoping for some of those letters with slashes through them or something.

If it's any consolation, I ran it through the Dialectizer in Swedish Chef mode, and go this:

Glengerry Glee Russ (bork! bork! bork!)

435 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:14:48pm

re: #395 lostlakehiker

I compliment you on considering Lomborg's proposed method for creating global priorities, even if you disagree. Lomborg's proposed method addresses the issues in a rational way.

You're right, of course, that Lomberg's methodology is economic cost-benefit analysis. That's not a perfect tool, and your value system may prioritize non-economic factors more highly. Agreeing on a rational method of prioritizing these issues, by itself, is a major step forward. That's why I admire Lomborg.

The evidence that climate change is occurring is overwhelming. The evidence that the change presents a global emergency about which we should panic is less compelling. I'll repeat: if AGW advocates are serious, then why aren't their policy prescriptions?

436 Wendya  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:16:03pm

re: #427 Charles

No, it's saying that Monckton misrepresented the data, and the website I linked proves it.

No problem. I'm sure even realclimate is correct on occasion.

That's the problem with the subject. Too many activists on both sides and the facts, whatever they may be, get lost in the shuffle.

437 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:16:08pm

re: #400 mrkwong

Don't trust a thing that guy says, he's a DI shill.

438 nyc redneck  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:16:28pm

btw. i have some nice fresh carbon credits for sale.
half price.
get them while they're hot.
algore will never sell them this low.

439 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:17:35pm

re: #431 freetoken

Conservation of Energy.

Put simply, we are making the atmosphere more opaque to IR. The Earth wants to reach equilibrium with the space that surrounds it. Inhibiting the flow of energy from the surface (without decrease in incoming energy) will raise the temperature of the surface until the outgoing radiation can balance the inflowing energy.

All of that said... with no need to reference any paleoclimate record.

The paleoclimate record is needed to try and determine how much, how fast, and where.

And the question is, what feedback cycles are, and how do they work?
For example, warmer weather could increase plant growth, and they could absorb more carbon. Different types of clouds cause different effects. Some reflect light and heat back to the ground, increasing heating; others reflect incoming light back into space, reducing heating. Changing temperatures will change the clouds, but we don't know how. Also, does sea water absorb more CO2 in warmer or cooler temperatures? (This might be known.)
The system is so complicated that computer models have to be used, and none take into account everything - because we don't know how everything will react.
But we could be building more nuclear power plants anyway.

440 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:17:51pm

re: #438 nyc redneck

btw. i have some nice fresh carbon credits for sale.
half price.
get them while they're hot.
algore will never sell them this low.

Can I trade in a slightly used unicorn? It farts rainbows.

441 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:18:01pm

re: #428 Liberal Classic

It comes as no great surprise to me that Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is also a proponent of intelligent design.

The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer
Faith Based Evolution by Dr. Roy Spencer.

There's quite a convergence between the most well-known climate change skeptics and creationism. James Inhofe issued a list of "dissenting scientists," for example, and it turned out that several of them were creationists -- either hardcore young earth creationists or ID creationists. And Inhofe himself is a Dominionist.

442 ArmyWife  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:18:07pm

re: #438 nyc redneck

Mine come with a free snuggie. So There.

443 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:18:36pm

Proof of Global Warming.

444 hazzyday  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:18:54pm

Bad Science should be smacked.

I can be educated by reading. But global warming proponents have some generic strikes against their plausibilty. Deserved or not.

1. Giving Al Gore a prize. This had the effect of politicizing global warming and dwarfing the efforts of the actual scientist. Those who approve of Gore start out in a minus hole. He is not science.

2. Calling something a carbon credit when it's not really soot or the substance Superman crushes with his hands into diamonds. That is just another bogus lead in.

3. Calling CO2 bad and failing to point out it's part of a natural cycle of life on earth and then describing it's problem in that framework.

4. Insisting that Global Warming is a proven fact and doesn't need to be questioned anymore. This idea to me identifies the scientist saying that as someone who doesn't adher to his own scientific method. Of course creationist exhibit this ignorant stubborness constantly. But these scientist are at a point where they should be published a set of common accepted conventions.

5. Going from describing it as Global Warming to Global Change and back to Global Warming. This is just like the nightly newscast where one night wine has a study saying it's bad for you and the next night is a study saying it's good for you.

To the lay person like myself Global Warming while it may indeed by the real thing has a lack of credibility in how people communicate about it. I 'm very willing to wait the 5 years until the Al Gore polar ice caps don't melt and call it bogus. No action at all until then.

A. it's Co2 not C
B. It's the climate change greater than 25 years and less then hundred years.

-----

Identifying C02 ppm does seem effective. measuring polar ice seems vastly not understood.

I feel like I'm being sold an unproven bills of goods with payment asked for upfront.

445 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:19:13pm

re: #440 Sharmuta

Can I trade in a slightly used unicorn? It farts rainbows.

Send your unicorn to the glue works instead. ;)

446 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:19:14pm

re: #439 Kosh's Shadow

I was addressing Zombie's question:

... how can we confidently claim that the changes we see today have any different origin or significance as compared to the climate change of the pre-Industrial distant past?

447 nyc redneck  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:19:52pm

re: #440 Sharmuta

Can I trade in a slightly used unicorn? It farts rainbows.

LOL. yes.
i can work w/ that. i like the idea of a trade.
let's keep it btw us and o won't be able to tax the barter.
:D
(btw, finally i'm getting a unicorn. yay.)

448 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:20:22pm

re: #446 freetoken

I was addressing Zombie's question:

OK. I wasn't criticizing you; I didn't have time to read the whole thread, and picked what seemed to be a good post to reply to.

449 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:20:52pm

re: #406 Thanos

I agree that we don't know what will happen when solar cycle 24 finally kicks up. I think the contribution of CO2 to future temperature is highly uncertain because the H2O feedbacks are not well understood (and those feedbacks are of dominant significance). We'll learn the truth over the next 50 years or so.

I disagree that ALL of the "denialists" make the solar case. My favorite argument is that warmer is better, CO2 increases plant growth, and so it's all a good thing. The increase in agricultural output just from increased CO2 could be staggering, but only if it actually does get warmer.

450 Dr. Shalit  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:20:54pm

re: #427 Charles

No, it's saying that Monckton misrepresented the data, and the website I linked proves it.

Charles -

If he is a fraud - I will give up Monckton.

Truth is Truth - BS is BS.

That is all.

-S-

451 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:21:13pm

re: #443 UncleRancher

Proof of Global Warming.

Before I click . . . 10 to 1 that it's the picture of progressively smaller women's undergarments that I've already seen 10,000 times . . .

. . . well, the concept is the same, but this is the picture I was thinking of.

452 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:21:28pm

News;
Politicized
Language;
Politicized
Science;
Politicized
Weather;
Politicized

We live in a heck of a time.

453 UncleRancher  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:21:29pm

Bbltr. Chores.

454 cronus  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:21:44pm

re: #438 nyc redneck

btw. i have some nice fresh carbon credits for sale.
half price.
get them while they're hot.
algore will never sell them this low.

This is perfect, I have some credit default swaps I need to untangle myself from as well.

455 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:22:02pm

re: #433 A Kiwi Infidel

No. The North Pole was not ice free.

456 hazzyday  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:22:11pm

re: #441 Charles

There's quite a convergence between the most well-known climate change skeptics and creationism. James Inhofe issued a list of "dissenting scientists," for example, and it turned out that several of them were creationists -- either hardcore young earth creationists or ID creationists. And Inhofe himself is a Dominionist.

I think the peculiar logic strands of brain chemical synapses used are the same. Seeps over into trooferism also. These are people who can't think scientifically.

457 Liberal Classic  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:24:26pm

re: #439 Kosh's Shadow

Put simply, we are making the atmosphere more opaque to IR. The Earth wants to reach equilibrium with the space that surrounds it. Inhibiting the flow of energy from the surface (without decrease in incoming energy) will raise the temperature of the surface until the outgoing radiation can balance the inflowing energy.

And the question is, what feedback cycles are, and how do they work?
For example, warmer weather could increase plant growth, and they could absorb more carbon. Different types of clouds cause different effects. Some reflect light and heat back to the ground, increasing heating; others reflect incoming light back into space, reducing heating. Changing temperatures will change the clouds, but we don't know how. Also, does sea water absorb more CO2 in warmer or cooler temperatures? (This might be known.)
The system is so complicated that computer models have to be used, and none take into account everything - because we don't know how everything will react.
But we could be building more nuclear power plants anyway.

The important point in freetoken's post is that energy must be conserved. If we make the atmosphere more attenuating to infrared wavelengths, then the temperature of the earth must rise in until there is an energy balance. The feedback systems people talk about affect not the end result. They may control oscillatory effects before temperatures reach a new equilibrium. They may affect the length of time necessary to reach equilibrium. But ultimately, these feedback systems will not change the conservation of energy.

458 hazzyday  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:24:33pm

Global Warming important to consider?

Over a 1 year cycle? yes
10 years? yes
100 years? yes
1000 years? maybe
10,000 years? probably not
100,000 years? no.

459 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:24:36pm

re: #450 Dr. Shalit

Charles -

If he is a fraud - I will give up Monckton.

Truth is Truth - BS is BS.

That is all.

-S-

Monckton IS a fraud, and not just about climate change:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

460 Racer X  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:25:48pm

I trust no one. I believe no one. My lying eyes sometimes get the benefit of the doubt.

461 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:26:18pm

re: #449 Pythagoras

re: #449 Pythagoras

I didn't say "all". Would you agree that Monckton picked the period he did because of the decreased solar radiation and temperatures knowing that the average layman wasn't going to look at that at all?

462 jcm  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:28:07pm

re: #460 Racer X

I trust no one. I believe no one. My lying eyes sometimes get the benefit of the doubt.

Trust me.
It's Turtles all the way down.

Now send money.

463 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:30:31pm

re: #457 Liberal Classic

The important point in freetoken's post is that energy must be conserved. If we make the atmosphere more attenuating to infrared wavelengths, then the temperature of the earth must rise in until there is an energy balance. The feedback systems people talk about affect not the end result. They may control oscillatory effects before temperatures reach a new equilibrium. They may affect the length of time necessary to reach equilibrium. But ultimately, these feedback systems will not change the conservation of energy.

Yes, but the feedback cycles themselves may reach a new plateau. For example, let's say at 1 degree warmer, the plants grow fast enough to absorb all the CO2 we're producing. We'd then stay at that level, and not get warmer. This is not a realistic example, but it is the kind of thing I meant.

464 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:30:58pm

re: #459 Charles

Monckton IS a fraud, and not just about climate change:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

Bears vote early, my dear!

It's a mnemonic for the order of British peerage, from lowest to highest:
Baron
Viscount
Earl
Marquis
Duke

465 David Simon  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:31:15pm

Not entirely off topic:

The Obama budget calls for tax increases of more than $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Official budget calculations disguise the resulting fiscal drag by treating Mr. Obama's proposal to cancel the 2011 income tax increases for taxpayers with incomes below $250,000 as if they are real tax cuts. The plan to modify the Alternative Minimum Tax to avoid increases for some taxpayers is also treated as a tax cut.

But those are false tax cuts in which no one's tax bill actually declines. In contrast, the proposed tax increases are very real. And despite the proposed tax increases, the government's new spending and transfer programs would cause the annual budget deficit in 2019 to exceed $1 trillion, or 5.7% of GDP.

Mr. Obama's biggest proposed tax increase is the cap-and-trade system of requiring businesses to buy carbon dioxide emission permits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed permit auctions would raise about $80 billion a year and that these extra taxes would be passed along in higher prices to consumers. Anyone who drives a car, uses public transportation, consumes electricity or buys any product that involves creating CO2 in its production would face higher prices.


[Link: online.wsj.com...]

466 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:31:36pm

When I wake up in the morning at this time of year, it's 50 degrees in NYC. The temperature rises to about 70 degrees in early afternoon. Clouds rolls through during the day, blocking sunlight and cooling thing off. The wind picks up, and then dies down. The tide rises and falls. The sun gets hotter and colder in sunspot cycles. There are many variables affect climate.

The climate changes. If the human race never had existed, the climate would change. People who say that are correct. Burning fossil fuel increases CO2 levels. When a volcano erupts, it spews CO2 into the atmosphere. When all the cattle on the planet expel flatulence, the aggregate volume of CO2 emitted exceeds that of all combustion engines combined. So human activity probably contributes to CO2 levels.

But shall we panic, and tell African tribesmen they must slaughter their cattle herds to lower CO2 emissions, ensuring poverty and starvation for them? Or should we build a global support infrastructure that increases wealth and prosperity globally in an energy-efficient and carbon-neutral manner over a period of years and decades? That way, the tribesman won't starve, will be free of disease, will have a cheap school to which to send his children, and can understand these issues well enough to participate in the discussion. That's another advantage of the Lomborg method of prioritizing.

467 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:32:39pm
468 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:34:10pm

BTW, over the past two decades I have slowly changed my mind about AGW. Back when it started to become a hot topic in the 80's I was quite willing to chalk it up to interesting science but of no real concern, and was quite willing to give Reagan a "pass" when he brushed off the growing concerns in Congress (Gore's hearings, etc.) I too thought it was only the "left's" activists' trying to cause issues.

Over time I have become convinced that it is more than a mere scientific curiosity, and that I, in some very generalized sense, owe it to future generations of Americans to give at least a little bit of concern to the future.

While I am more interested in the science than the pissing match going on in the halls of politics, it is indeed fascinating to see that AGW has become such a rallying cry in politics... and I have become especially dismayed that so much of the GOP (with whom I have identified in the past) and the "conservatives" seem so willing to dump the scientific community for the activists with spreadsheets (e.g., WUWT, Monckton, etc.)

469 gmsc  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:34:27pm

re: #467 buzzsawmonkey

There comes a point when the data duels just get boring.

...and here's why they get boring:

The Illusion of Superiority

Youtube Video
470 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:34:38pm

OT: Pic of the day (via Hot Air).

471 yankeebaseball  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:35:11pm

re: #423 Dark_Falcon

Did you see Nimoy on the season finale of Fringe last night?

472 nyc redneck  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:36:40pm

it seems like there are opportunists scrambling around trying to prove their point on both sides of the issue. i'm just NOT going to get hysterical abt. global warming or "climate change," as it is now known. because this is the p.c. phrase to cover all bases, since blizzards like to blow every time algore shows up to spew abt. the heat.
we need more time to actually see what the weather is going to do.
there is no way to really predict it w/ absolute accuracy and certainty.
i'm all for conservation and caring for the earth.
just not going over board and putting onerous burdens on humanity when they
are not warranted.

473 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:36:44pm

re: #470 Killgore Trout

OT: Pic of the day (via Hot Air).

heh....get some

474 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:37:09pm

I see no reason why we can't address environmental concerns along with our energy issues. I don't like see charlatans involved in either side of the debate. I do think we live in exciting times where science and technology could come up with some amazing solutions. Considering the state of science education in this country, though, I'm starting to think the Japanese will figure it out before an American can. But I digress.

While we're developing better energy technology, I think we should be producing our own instead of getting it from the middle east, so I still support American energy and drilling.

475 1SG(ret)  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:37:59pm

Most conservatives have the biggest problem with scientists have the word "Consensus" after whatever it is they are saying. If the science is there to prove something, why do they keep using this word. Having to use a consensus means there are some that can question the work. I have no doubt there is climate change, I just can't wrap my head around having to destroy our way of life to fix it, when many say it won't make that much of a difference.

476 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:38:27pm

re: #461 Thanos

re: #449 Pythagoras

I didn't say "all". Would you agree that Monckton picked the period he did because of the decreased solar radiation and temperatures knowing that the average layman wasn't going to look at that at all?

You're right on "all." Point taken.

I can't say I know why he picked that time period. I thought it was just because there's been a downtrend in temperature. That last solar peak was in 2002 but a lot of the "solarists" say it's the length of the solar cycle, not the height that matters. Obviously, that's a much slower phenomenon. I don't know of anyone who thinks the Earth's temperature response is so quick that it bobs up and down with each solar cycle.

I'm perfectly willing to say Monkton's starting point is deliberately and openly cherry picked. He's saying that there's been a downtrend for 7 years and he shows it. There's nothing deceptive about this. A sports writer can write about a single week without citing the whole season. He can say that things are looking up. You can disagree and say we need to see another week or two, but the sports-writer isn't being deceptive.

477 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:41:39pm

I think we should be producing our own instead of getting it from the middle east, so I still support American energy and drilling.

478 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:42:36pm

re: #477 albusteve

I think we should be producing our own instead of getting it from the middle east, so I still support American energy and drilling.

Drill, Baby, drill!

479 yankeebaseball  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:44:00pm

re: #477 albusteve

The US could never supply enough domestically to meet the demand.

480 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:44:03pm

re: #470 Killgore Trout

OT: Pic of the day (via Hot Air).

Hah, very cool.

481 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:44:14pm

re: #477 albusteve

I think we should be producing our own instead of getting it from the middle east, so I still support American energy and drilling.

Did you know you have an evil twin who sometimes uses your account to post the most outrageous comments?

482 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:44:14pm

re: #474 Sharmuta

Oil is fungible, and the oil industry is global. Most middle eastern oil actually goes to Europe and Japan. We get much of our oil domestically and from Venezuela and Canada. In addition, we profit from oil refining. Gasoline engines are the past. Diesel engines are the future. We import a lot of gasoline from Europe, where they refine more and we export a lot of diesel fuel globally, because we refine more of that.

We're actually very competitive in our diesel fuel exports, and we profit from that value-add. Having said that, I still advocate for more fourth generation nuclear plants, and for miniature nuclear plants in large cities. Electric is the way to go, except for large vehicles. No one has figured out how to build an 18-wheeler that runs on electricity yet, so we're stuck with hydrocarbons for transportation for a while longer.

483 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:44:41pm

Just to be clear, if I were in charge, we'd be going all out on nuclear power, and any company that thought they could make money with wind, solar, etc. without subsidies, would find the permitting process streamlined.
BTW, Israel has set up the first solar power farm that doesn't need a subsidy to be economical.

I would go slower on hydrogen, but I'd keep research into producing it more efficiently. Right now, the source is natural gas, and I'd guess it is more efficient just to burn the natural gas.

Also, I'd have research into things that could be done with CO2. Perhaps make plastics or something. That would offset some of the costs of capturing it in large power plants.

And I'd keep going with climate research, but not try to get specific results out of it. We need to keep improving the models, and that won't happen if we try to fit them to preconceived results.

So, if the lizard party wins in 2012, can I be energy czar?

484 Randall Gross  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:45:48pm

re: #476 Pythagoras

Don't look at the spots, look at the radiation measures (yellow)

485 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:46:05pm

re: #477 albusteve

I think we should be producing our own instead of getting it from the middle east, so I still support American energy and drilling.

the feds control the energy...they will not let us provide for ourselves...what kind of govt is that?...instead we contribute to our own economic hardship and unspeakable horrors in the ME because of ideological power games we have little control over...the donks own the govt and the courts and the souls of the people....I hold the feds in the Highest Contempt, whatever anybody says about me...it's immoral and criminal and we are lessened as a society for it....it's despicable

486 cronus  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:46:14pm

re: #440 Sharmuta

Can I trade in a slightly used unicorn? It farts rainbows.

Another CO2 free energy source!

487 Dark_Falcon  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:46:22pm

re: #471 yankeebaseball

Did you see Nimoy on the season finale of Fringe last night?

Nope. Is that show any good? I haven't really had a chance to get involved with new shows this year.

488 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:46:36pm

re: #481 swamprat

Did you know you have an evil twin who sometimes uses your account to post the most outrageous comments?

bad foo

489 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:47:34pm

re: #463 Kosh's Shadow

Yes, but the feedback cycles themselves may reach a new plateau.

If you look at the reconstruction of the climates of the recent ice ages, the "plateau", so to speak, of the warm periods (between the icy ones) suggests that we could, if we drive the climate enough, force the climate to be similar to that of the Eemian.

During the Eemian sea levels were higher than they are today. Do we want to try and do that?

Whether we are able to drive the climate to be warmer than the Eemian... that is a good question. Indeed, while the "consensus" is (truly, it is) that human caused changes to the Earth atmosphere and landscape will lead to some warming, there does not appear to be a consensus on what the upper limit of that warming may be. The biggest unknown is human behavior (whether we will burn all the coal, kerogen shale, and tar we can find).

Personally, I am quite pessimistic, because, contrary to President Obama's campaign theme, the last thing humans like to do is to change.

490 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:48:31pm

re: #480 Thanos

Hah, very cool.

Taliban: Beware a Texan in pink boxers. You see a man there with no false fears.

491 Sharmuta  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:48:33pm

re: #482 quickjustice

I think nuclear power plants, more refineries, and drilling American oil would create a lot of jobs.

492 swamprat  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:49:44pm

re: #488 albusteve

Damn! You arque with avanti so much, I transposed.
Sorry.

493 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:50:09pm

re: #491 Sharmuta

I think nuclear power plants, more refineries, and drilling American oil would create a lot of jobs.

Nuke plants are a big YES, but it's not going to happen, at least not enough to make the needed difference.

495 HelloDare  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:52:09pm

I first read Real Climate years ago when I heard that there might be some problem with the Hockey Stick.

I Googled something like Gore hockey stick debunk. I forget exactly what. In any case, the first website that popped up was Real Climate.

The website said that the Hockey Stick was correct. And they called the people criticizing it names -- nothing horrendous, but I do remember thinking that it was out of character for a serious science website to name call.

One of the claims of Real Climate was that Mann left out either the Global Climate Optimum or the Little Ice Age or both because there was no data saying that they were world-wide phenomena. My mind is a little fuzzy but I do remember that I found out that they were wrong about that or at least there was another side to it. There was data to suggest that GCO or LIA or both were global. I forget exactly what I was researching but I do remember South Pole ice core date, proxies from Nile river sediment and an alpine lake near the equator in South America.

So that started me thinking.

Then I heard that the first website that pops up if you searchGore Hockey Stick debunked (I forget exactly what the words were) was Mann's own website.

So I went back to Real Climate and sure enough after looking under about or some other thing up popped Mann's name.

The article supporting the hockey stick and calling its critics names didn't have an author as I recall. For all I know, Mann could have written it.

Real Climate should have disclosed one of the authors of the Hockey Stick was a member of their website.

Not exactly honest in my opinion.

Well, the Hockey Stick has been discredited.

I have not read about Monckton. And don't have time to tonight.

I haven't trusted either side of the Climate Change debate for awhile now.

But I do know that Climate Changes. That's what climate does.

I would like to find a trusted source about a rise in temperature preceding a rise in CO2. If anybody has one, please post it.

I'm out for the evening. I'll look for it tomorrow.

496 shortshrift  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:53:03pm

I have come in late to this thread, so I don't know if Monckton very convincing defense and reposte to RealClimate has already been linked to:
[Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org...]
As his title suggests, this is the third time he has responded to accusations of fakery.

497 nyc redneck  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:54:59pm

i'm going to get a nice 1940's style wind mill and set that puppy up and get myself off the "grid". good clean energy.
there are also these solar stove/ovens. they are great in the dessert. they can actually bake a cake or a loaf of bread.
and i'll use a swedish wood stove for heat.
if everyone did stuff like this, just think how many people would lose their jobs and all the lost taxes and benefits going to the gov't.
of course they would find a way to tax the wind, the sun and the trees.

498 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:55:05pm
499 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:56:04pm

re: #427 Charles

No, it's saying that Monckton misrepresented the data, and the website I linked proves it.

I'm unconvinced by their "proof." Monckton's point seems to simply be that the temperature has decreased for 7 years. He then shows the data over that time period along with a linear regression of the data and the lines that the IPCC projected increases would yield.

The argument that 7 years is too short is valid but Gore and Hansen have been screaming about shorter time-spans than that. Saying we should wait longer to get more data is unacceptable to the AGW crowd.

500 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:57:19pm

re: #497 nyc redneck

i'm going to get a nice 1940's style wind mill and set that puppy up and get myself off the "grid". good clean energy.
there are also these solar stove/ovens. they are great in the dessert. they can actually bake a cake or a loaf of bread.
and i'll use a swedish wood stove for heat.
if everyone did stuff like this, just think how many people would lose their jobs and all the lost taxes and benefits going to the gov't.
of course they would find a way to tax the wind, the sun and the trees.

my 'carbon footprint' is microscopic now....what are the feds doing for me?...delivering the fucking mail?

501 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 6:59:34pm

I don't oppose energy production of many kinds. I prefer energy production that doesn't require government subsidies. I also prefer that government get out of the way of energy production by not erecting obstacles to it, as is Obama and his Administration.

502 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:01:08pm

re: #501 quickjustice

I don't oppose energy production of many kinds. I prefer energy production that doesn't require government subsidies. I also prefer that government get out of the way of energy production by not erecting obstacles to it, as is Obama and his Administration.

Obama did not invent NIMBY-pamby environmental regulations.

503 albusteve  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:02:10pm

re: #501 quickjustice

I don't oppose energy production of many kinds. I prefer energy production that doesn't require government subsidies. I also prefer that government get out of the way of energy production by not erecting obstacles to it, as is Obama and his Administration.

the country is too big, too many people, to many oddball interests...BO is a liar and a theif...power trumps patriotism

504 pink freud  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:02:23pm

re: #498 buzzsawmonkey

Durkheim's 4 functions of deviance (or, as you label it, sin):

Affirming cultural values and norms
Clarifying moral boundaries
Promoting social unity
Encouraging social change

You're onto something here.

505 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:02:34pm

re: #484 Thanos

Don't look at the spots, look at the radiation measures (yellow)

The 10.7cm flux peaked at the start of 2002, which agrees with the sunspot peak, which agrees with your hypothesis that Monckton based his start on the solar peak. We agree, but I'm happy to look at some other data. What "yellow"?

506 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:02:35pm

re: #502 OldLineTexan

No, but he seems to be on board with them.

507 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:04:14pm

re: #506 quickjustice

No, but he seems to be on board with them.

Just sayin' we've been digging this hole for a while instead of drilling.

508 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:05:26pm

re: #498 buzzsawmonkey

[Singing to the tune of "I Feel Pretty" from "West Side Story"]: "I feel guilty, oh so guilty . . ."

509 shortshrift  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:06:27pm

re: #499 Pythagoras

See the link at my post above at #496

510 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:07:14pm
511 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:08:48pm

re: #510 buzzsawmonkey

"...See that nasty neighbor that's over there,
Who doesn't recycle his trash..."

"What neighbor, where?"

512 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:09:23pm

re: #507 OldLineTexan

I've represented wildcat oil companies. I've been out in the oil patch around rigs. The Democrats have been stripping away the oil depletion allowance to get even with Bush's oil and gas supporters. Their petty vindictiveness is par for the course, and will dry up oil exploration and production domestically. We're in for another severe shortage of refined gasoline and diesel around 2012 that will make the recent run up in gas prices seem mild by comparison.

513 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:11:49pm

re: #512 quickjustice

I've represented wildcat oil companies. I've been out in the oil patch around rigs. The Democrats have been stripping away the oil depletion allowance to get even with Bush's oil and gas supporters. Their petty vindictiveness is par for the course, and will dry up oil exploration and production domestically. We're in for another severe shortage of refined gasoline and diesel around 2012 that will make the recent run up in gas prices seem mild by comparison.

OK. Now, how many oil wells did Bush push for off Florida? You know, where the Chinese are drilling.

I am the furthest thing from an Obama supporter, and have worked in the oilfield as well, but this has been coming down the pike for a long time.

514 rain of lead  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:12:14pm

Re. AGW
to steal a line

" I will believe there is a problem when the people who are telling me there
is a problem start acting like there is a problem."

515 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:21:03pm

re: #496 shortshrift

I have come in late to this thread, so I don't know if Monckton very convincing defense and reposte to RealClimate has already been linked to:
[Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org...]
As his title suggests, this is the third time he has responded to accusations of fakery.

Thanks for the link. I think Monckton's response deserves careful analysis by all here.

However, I wouldn't want to try to defend his Lordship. What is up with all that anyway? I don't care if he's a Divinity School flunky -- it's his arguments that matter.

516 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:25:25pm

re: #490 OldLineTexan

Taliban: Beware a Texan in pink boxers. You see a man there with no false fears.

I love the idea of the last thing that a Taliban type seeing is a pair of boxers with the phrase "I love NY" on them.

517 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:29:57pm

re: #513 OldLineTexan

I lived in Florida for a decade, so I take your point. The fear expressed was that oil drilling would cause spills that would pollute Florida tourist beaches. I think spill control technology now is good enough to prevent such problems.

518 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:30:52pm

re: #515 Pythagoras

Gore flunked out of D-School, so there's a certain parity there!

519 yankeebaseball  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:35:55pm

re: #487 Dark_Falcon

Fringe is a really fun show. It has a bit of a comic book feel to it.

I think you can watch all the episodes on line.
[Link: www.fox.com...]

520 code red 21  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:39:18pm

I want to know how I can get into the business of selling the fools who think buying carbon credits from Algore helps the planet. On second thought maybe I could start one of those home based Internet businesses where you can make a thousand dollars a week selling carbon credits and I'll get my cut of 50%. On a more serious note back in the 70's we were told that an ice age was coming and we were all going to starve to death because it would be too cold to plant crops. We need to take a common sense approach to what our energy needs are and a realistic way of meeting those needs. I don't think miles of solar panels and windmills are the answer I would put my money on nuclear it's cleaner and cheaper. Besides if the French can do it so can we.

521 hopperandadropper  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:41:44pm

re: #212 Charles

Well, Charles, pretending that the results of computer models constitute actual data is a fundamental misrepresentation, and that is what the pro-AGW side specializes in. Saying over and over that polar bear populations are threatened, when the best available information (mostly available from Canadian government sources) shows clearly that they are not, is a misrepresentation. Endlessly citing Hurricane Katrina as an example of the consequences of global warming, but keeping mum when the following two seasons are well below average for hurricane activity, is intellectual dishonesty.

No doubt there is distortion and sloppy work on the other side as well, but on the other hand which side of the argument is arguing that we have to fundamentally reorganize our society? The burden of proof is very much on them.

522 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:45:16pm

re: #256 MacGregor

Soros foundation gave $720,000 to James Hansen to Politicize Science
What do you think?

Hmmm. I went to the source, and it looks like the Soros grant was to assess/fight the politicization of science, not to encourage same. Where did your headline come from?

523 ladycatnip  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:50:03pm

#520 code red 21

I want to know how I can get into the business of selling the fools who think buying carbon credits from Algore helps the planet. On second thought maybe I could start one of those home based Internet businesses where you can make a thousand dollars a week selling carbon credits and I'll get my cut of 50%. On a more serious note back in the 70's we were told that an ice age was coming and we were all going to starve to death because it would be too cold to plant crops. We need to take a common sense approach to what our energy needs are and a realistic way of meeting those needs. I don't think miles of solar panels and windmills are the answer I would put my money on nuclear it's cleaner and cheaper. Besides if the French can do it so can we.

I believe carbon credits are the biggest scam since snake oil. Global Warming, now renamed Climate Change, is one huge power grab. It's not surprising all those going around saying the sky is falling are the same ones flying in personal jets, driving SUV's, and living in 28,000sq.ft homes running up utilities (as Algore) to the tune of $30K a year.

You mentioned the Ice Age "crisis" back in the '70's - I was around then thinking what a bunch of idiots - and it turned out I was right. No ice age.

524 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:51:21pm

re: #518 quickjustice

Gore flunked out of D-School, so there's a certain parity there!

Glad someone got the joke.

525 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:51:42pm
526 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:53:40pm
527 formercorpsman  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:55:05pm

re: #512 quickjustice

I only have one post, then off to bed.

What you just wrote, is really what I feel in my gut with this matter.

My mind is open to the different debates either side may have, and as a bottom line, anything we can do to conserve, better yet, not waste is a good thing.

Our existence will influence our environment, just go back and check the carbon ppm during the Cretaceous Period.

All in all, either side pursuing nefarious data to push an agenda is wrong. Flat out wrong. Watching Al Gore essentially scream about this from his bully pulpit gets my hackles up in similar fashion as watching Jimmy Swaggart cry, & beg for forgiveness because he was caught cheating. I have a smell test, and they ain't passing it.

Buying carbon credits seems quite a bit like buying dispensation for sins.

Moreover, somewhere at the end of such a benevolent act, one is cleaning up big time.

528 ladycatnip  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:56:11pm

#526 Iron Fist

Oh, there was an Ice Age. It is just a warm Ice Age (once you control all of the definitions to all of the words everything is possible...)

Oh, so that's what it was. I suppose the next logical age would be a tepid Global Warming. Makes perfect sense. Thank you!

529 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:57:00pm

The "Science and Public Policy Institute" is Christopher Monckton's main outlet for his propaganda. It might be appropriate to note that, if you're going to cite that website to support his distortions.

530 quickjustice  Wed, May 13, 2009 7:57:26pm

re: #513 OldLineTexan

A good essay on how biased Democrats are against oil and gas production:

[Link: www.reason.com...]

531 The Sanity Inspector  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:00:10pm

For those who can't tell what's true and what's not in the climate change debate, Climate Debate Daily is a godsend. I'm a strong believer in the power of aggregate knowledge, so I lean toward the believers in climate change, since they have evidence from so many scientific disciplines. But, I know that there are eco-misanthropes out there misusing the data, who think that the majority of humanity should just die, and the rest go knit potholders on some hippie commune.

532 Pythagoras  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:04:28pm

re: #529 Charles

The "Science and Public Policy Institute" is Christopher Monckton's main outlet for his propaganda. It might be appropriate to note that, if you're going to cite that website to support his distortions.

I agree. Was what I did in #374 adequate?

533 [deleted]  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:12:13pm
534 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:32:31pm

re: #428 Liberal Classic

It comes as no great surprise to me that Roy Spencer, Ph.D. is also a proponent of intelligent design.

The Evolution Crisis: Dr. Roy Spencer
Faith Based Evolution by Dr. Roy Spencer.

Excellent point. The more I read, the more instances I find of "overlap" between advocates/funders of ID and climate change denial. Disturbing.

535 Galroc  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:38:15pm

re: #212 Charles

Of course, I knew the dreaded "hockey stick" controversy would come up. It always does.

But the bottom line with the "hockey stick" graph: the most you can say about it is that it was based on mistaken information. NOT deliberately falsified information.

I am sorry, but they deliberately eliminated the medieval warming period and the little ice age. The only way to do that is weighting some of their data. That is extremely unethical.

Two sides to every story and here is Monckton reply:

[Link: scienceandpublicpolicy.org...]

536 shortshrift  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:44:56pm

re: #529 Charles

I cited (not having read #374) the website because that is where Monckton defends himself against charges of fakery. That is the fair thing to do. Each side in the climate debate regularly accuses the other of "propaganda" and fudging numbers. Monckton accuses RealClimate of vested interest propagandizing. The IPPC's "consensus" is propaganda too. Pointing out that there is another side is not like demanding creationism should be part of the "debate" on evolution. It points out that there is a debate - and a scientific one, despite the fact that scientists take political positions and can engage in ad hominem arguments. (Scientists can also believe in God.)
All links in the warming debate should come with a "balance" warning, or come with a link to the other side.
I agree with #531 that Climate Debate Daily site - which give warmist and skeptic articles - is invaluable for the general reader.

537 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:49:17pm

re: #536 shortshrift


All links in the warming debate should come with a "balance" warning, or come with a link to the other side.

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.

/oops... wrong science conversation

// otoh... maybe not.

538 streetfighter  Wed, May 13, 2009 8:51:28pm

re: #245 Charles

That's not fair at all. Unless you're aware of a case in which Hansen has deliberately falsified evidence. I'm not. But on the other hand, Monckton has been caught over and over in falsehoods and distortions -- including claiming that he's a member of the House of Lords -- which he is not.

You may differ with Hansen's conclusions, but it's not correct at all to put him in the same class as Monckton.

Here is the the problem, Hansen must be shown to DELIBERATLEY falsifify information. Yet Monckton is simply caught with faslehoods. Here in lies the problem. This is what you call a class. Deliberate false information is bad. False information is is ok as long as it is it is not deliberate. Science doesn't work that way false is false intened or not. Hansen has been wrong in his interpretations many times. You hide it by saying you may differ with his conclusions. No, he has been shown to be wrong mant times.

539 shortshrift  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:13:27pm

re: #537 freetoken

So amusing. I had anticipated that facile argument. I stated that there is a scientific debate, among scientists - scientists of many disciplines, including astro-physics, particle physics and thermodynamics where the discussion is more abstruse and less loud than the quarrel over graph curves, but demonstrates a serious scientific commitment to providing evidence for the theories of climate change.

540 freetoken  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:16:02pm

re: #539 shortshrift

Lots of big words with many syllables in that paragraph.

541 LieSeeker  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:28:14pm

Oh, the IPCC stuff has been shown to be wrong many times, including by the IPCC. But pointing at RealClimate for something involving science is an error. Cheerleading, yes. There are better places such as the rankexploits.com musings.

542 mrkwong  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:34:30pm

Ever see (or read) 'Bridge on the River Kwai'? Hansen's basically Colonel Nicholson. At this point it no longer matters to him whether he's right or wrong, just that he wins.

543 Galroc  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:35:48pm

Here is the key for me, who makes their raw data available? Who makes their source code available? Who publishes the algorithms that they are using available? More often that not, AGW scientists refuse to do the above. I am referring to the small circle of scientists (Hansen, et al, and Mann et al) that seem to get linked to on this blog.

I am a skeptic, but not a ID proponent. I am as nonreligious as you get but my wife thinks I am going to hell (she is very religious). I don't like the way people paint other people on this blog with a broad brush. If someone is in a particular group, then discount everything else that person says, even if it is unrelated. Silly.

So Monckton is a fraud because he picked 7 years as his range? That is absurd. Did any model predict the cooling over the last 7 years? No. What has CO2 done over the last 7 years? It has still gone up but temperature has gone down. What has the ocean temperatures done for the last 5 years? Why is the Arctic approaching its 30 year norm for ice extent (was G. Will right?) and the Antarctic is over its average? How long of a cooling period before you realize that CO2 is a extremely small driver of climate? 10? 15 years? That isn't a long time to wait since this story is already 30 years old.

I have mentioned here before that I am a scientist and I will match my credentials with anyone here.

I am a strong environmentalist. I practice what I preach. I car pool everyday and have for the last 4 years. We use 2000 less gallons of gas/year than what we did 4 years ago. I cut down my heating oil usage from 1500 gallons/year to 400 gallons/year in the last year. All my bulbs in my house are fluorescent. I can go on and on.

Short hand. I am a AGW skeptic but not a GW skeptic.

544 mrkwong  Wed, May 13, 2009 9:57:11pm

re: #543 Galroc

Here is the key for me, who makes their raw data available? Who makes their source code available? Who publishes the algorithms that they are using available? More often that not, AGW scientists refuse to do the above. I am referring to the small circle of scientists (Hansen, et al, and Mann et al) that seem to get linked to on this blog.

My approach is similar. Hansen and his ilk have had two decades and all the resources in the world to show something, anything confirming their claims. And they're not even close.

They make various claims including the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, based on their computer models, that cannot be validated in real-world experiment.

They put out big scary press releases but as soon as one peels back even one layer of obfuscation one finds they're diddling the data again e.g. Steig and the Antarctic 'warming' that's supported only if you use Peninsula monitoring data for half the continent.

And then there's the IPCC, which like so many things UN is a hollow shell with an impressive logo driven by a political agenda.

Personally, I subscribe to the Michael Crichton philosophy: the environmental community has reached a point where they're now doing more harm than good.

545 eddiebear  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:07:05pm

re: #523 ladycatnip

Carbon Credits strike me as the modern day equivalent of buying indulgences.

546 mrkwong  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:07:49pm

re: #437 Thanos

Don't trust a thing that guy says, he's a DI shill.

To whom are you referring, and what do you mean by 'DI'?

547 eddiebear  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:09:16pm

re: #546 mrkwong

Drill Instructor?

548 mrkwong  Wed, May 13, 2009 10:47:48pm

re: #547 eddiebear

Drill Instructor?

Might be referring to Discovery Institute and the Roy Spencer piece I linked earlier. I'm not going to defend Spencer's credibility re any creationist bent which would certainly be a cause for concern, but then some of the golden boys of the AGW crowd e.g Hansen aren't exactly committed to scientific method.

The piece I linked to was a simple piece of math that ought to be easy enough to validate or disprove; whatever its validity, there's still no substantive historical evidence supporting the CO2 claims the AGW modelers make.

549 rhino2  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:18:53pm

re: #338 Dr. Shalit

Flyers1974 -

OK, let us go through the language. "A Well Regulated Militia" - in the 1770's/1780's - included every Caucasian MALE able to bear arms. The concept has expanded since then. "Afro-Saxons" are included as are FEMALES.
The Basic Concept is - A Government Afraid of it's People is OK - A People - Afraid of it's Government - IS NOT!

-S-

Let's let Penn explain.


Youtube Video
550 Optimizer  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:38:57pm

re: #212 Charles

Of course, I knew the dreaded "hockey stick" controversy would come up. It always does.

But the bottom line with the "hockey stick" graph: the most you can say about it is that it was based on mistaken information. NOT deliberately falsified information.

The more I research the climate change issues, the more I'm seeing that nearly ALL of the deliberate fakery is coming from the anti-AGW side. Monckton is a prime example, but you don't have to search very hard to find others. ... I've found very few examples of deliberately misrepresented scientific data from the AGW side. I know this isn't a popular view among conservatives, but it's true.

I'm still skeptical about the long-term consequences, but getting less so as I research it. I AM, however, becoming increasingly disgusted with the lies and distortions I'm seeing from the GOP and right wing on the issue.

The way I heard it, the "bad data" was given extra weight (I guess that was a coincidence), and the principle components analysis was done in such a way that even if white noise (a purely random signal) were input, the result would be a "hockey stick". The filtering was so aggregious that it eliminated the Medievel warm period and the Little Ice Age - which apparently was the goal of the exercise. It goes further than just using some bad data.

As to the subject article, I don't know that much about Monckton. His scientific conclusion that the impact of CO2 has been grossly overstated certainly seems reasonable, given that we are constantly bombarded with alarmist rantings about rising CO2 causing runaway temperatures - and given that while the CO2 has kept rising over the past 10 years, the temperature seems to have maxed out. But he's just another guy with another theory, and the truth will probably come out as something somewhat different some day.

As to the allegations of fraud, I'd have to go through all this. Two things that strike me off the bat though, are that RealCLimate.org is a decidedly alarmist site, if I'm not mistaken (which gives it poor credibility, in my view), and that the article starts off the same way as a lot of alarmist articles: with ad hominem attacks. As to the "cherry-picking" of his start date, I'd noticed that myself, and don't care for it. I might point out that alarmists are known to chop their temperature data on the right, at around 1998 - in the midst of a temperature spike - to try to make it look more "hockey-stick-like". So much for the distortions being on one side.

As to being disgusted, I would think the guy who rails at Glenn Beck for his over-the-top ranting would have a field day with all the bogus scare tactics applied by the alarmists. I remember a paper a friend showed me that was supposed to support the AGW claims. It was chock full of stories about this group of loveable creatures dying (implying it's from AGW, while not actually saying it), about what would happen if the oceans rose be 30 feet (while at the same time admitting that it would likely never happen). As to any scientific conclusions or arguments it was always "this might happen" or "that might happen" - nothing definitive or definite, and all based on computer models that they implicitly admit are not validated (Hint: "They're getting better all the time" means "they don't work yet"). Can you honestly say that showing Gore's film to grade schoolers isn't irresponsibly scaring little kids, with all the outrageous (and disproven) claims it makes? Even the British courts have determined his film to have at least about a dozen significant errors, but they let Gore talk, and silence Monckton.

551 californiabrowser  Wed, May 13, 2009 11:47:41pm

forget about Moncton and think for yourself simple questions. Is it reasonable to ask: How good is are the climate codes at modeling the climate?
Look at the rc figure Image: comp_monck3.jpg
The spread of runs (the Gray in the graph) is so large that a even constant T from 1980 onwards would fit in. Yet the codes are used to claim terrible things are happening. So there must be some other reason that the codes are believed. We must believe the codes--they have proven themselves, somehow. The discussion of these issues is much more informative at [Link: rankexploits.com...]
I suspect you are being slightly deceived in the figure--it does not show the codes, if analyzed carefully would give a low probability of a 30 year trend that is flat (eg from 1980 onwards). How low a probability?

Using a more accurate IPCC projection of 0.2C/Decade SST warming, one would like see a serious study of how many years of a particular trend (higher, lower, whatever) would be enough for the codes to be considered poor, or good, predictors of the climate.
One can look at the weather record and many code runs and see (by eye) that a 10 year flat record is not enough to establish agreement or disagreement--but a 20 year may well be. One expects a high level of self-criticism, double and triple checking, superhuman efforts to find ways to run the code-climate comparisons 'double blind', insistence on detailed analysis of each weather station to ascertain its accuracy over long periods of time, including careful study of consequences of urban heat island and of microclimate (moving from grass to parking lot, for example) effects, careful statistical analysis from people who run codes that are used to announce a wide array of ill effects from CO2 emissions. I don't see this. God knows I have looked. One also expects them to show every detail of every calculation--if they are wrong the world is better off. You wont get that either. It is much more of the style 'I ran my code and saw X for wide set of initial conditions. And X is really bad.'

A serious effort must be made to quantify the accuracy of the codes (more precisely, since the codes do not model our climate except via an ensemble average, the believability of the method needs to be statistically established).
Go to the literature and see if you can find a such a discussion of when and how much codes should be believed given various possible climate evolutions. Find a clear statement in the literature, for example, that we should have a year hotter than 1998 within the next N years, and if not, the codes should no longer be believed. It is really the burden of the modelers to convince.

552 Alberta Oil Peon  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:33:24am

re: #403 zombie

I'm not saying that anything less than 100,00-year scale is "fake" -- I only gave that as an example of the kind of thing that could be claimed. Adjust the number to whatever scale one think is appropriate, to match what one is trying to illustrate.

But yes, your first point is germane: we are obsessively focusing on the last 100 years because that is the time-period during which the Industrial Revolution pumped out the most air pollution. But focusing on the time period in which we were "actors" is no different than the blonde who looks for her lost keys under the streetlamp "because that's where the light is" rather than looking where she actually lost them.

If we see -- as we do -- that in the past, the distant past, and the far-distant past, that temperatures have fluctuated wildly, with planet-wide Ice Ages coming and going, with mass extinctions probably related to climate change, with sea levels going up and down at huge scales we can barely even imagine (North America connected to Asia; California's Central Valley a vast inland sea; etc.), and all of this happened long before man had any effect on the climate (or before man even yet existed), then how can we confidently claim that the changes we see today have any different origin or significance as compared to the climate change of the pre-Industrial distant past?

Zombie, there's no point in trying to argue intelligently with a True Believer. Anyone who repeatedly refers to skeptics as "Deniers" is one who has drunk the Kool-Ade.

553 AreaMan  Thu, May 14, 2009 1:29:37am

The referenced RealClimate article is really vague on what numbers it disagrees with. I found myself trying to estimate quantities by drawing lines on my computer screen. I think they do have a point, or at least a numerical disagreement.

In any case, Monckton is not the best skeptic. Read the web sites for "Climate Audit" at [Link: climateaudit.org,...] and "Climate Science" at [Link: climatesci.org,...] and you must check out [Link: surfacestations.org....]

Of the three postures, alarmist, skeptic and denier, I find that I've moved from alarmist to skeptic; It's real, but we don't know how large, when, and what to do. Cap N Trade could be a disaster. Technological developments will be crucial, and we have the time and money to create some, but they are not predictable.

554 AreaMan  Thu, May 14, 2009 1:38:56am

The blogger messed up the links to the recommended skeptics, they are
surfacestations

Climate Science

Climate Audit

By the way, I don't think the deniers really have a good case, but I do think the alarmists are, well, alarmists.

555 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 1:57:06am

re: #549 rhino2

I took a look at the Second Amendment some time ago, and had difficulties making sense of it. At this point, I think the deal is that the second part is being put forward as something necessary for the first part. That you need the people to be able to keep their guns because the people are one and the same as the militia, which the state needs for security.

The anti-gun crowd tries to use this connection - this reasoning - to try to dismantle the Amendment. They say that the militia isn't composed of regular citizens with their own personal firearms, and even if it was it wouldn't be effective against tanks and the like anyway. So they claim that the whole thing is just an inapplicable anachronism that rednecks "cling to" at this point.

I think it was a mistake for the "reasoning" to be put into the Amendment, but that the spirit and intent is clear nonetheless. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is unambiguously mentioned (by people who professed the existence of "inalienable rights"), and the idea that people have the right to try to defend themselves - at least on some local level - is clear. The context of the era (which is relevant to any interpretation) is that one of the things a tyrant would do to subdue a population was to take away their guns, and the authors were clearly against that sort of thing. As far as firearms being obsolete for protection, just look at Iraq and Afghanistan, folks!

I'm no redneck (not that I have anything against them!), and no "gun nut" (never owned one, never even used one), but I'd say the right to bear arms is not only a Constitutionally mandated one, but a moral right as well.

556 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 2:49:54am

re: #554 AreaMan

The blogger messed up the links to the recommended skeptics, they are
surfacestations

Climate Science

Climate Audit

By the way, I don't think the deniers really have a good case, but I do think the alarmists are, well, alarmists.

Climate Audit is perhaps the best, but it's can be so technical that even a math geek/engineer like myself can have a hard time following it. It's owned and run by McIntyre, who de-bunked the "hockey stick", and works on it as a volunteer in his retirement. He actually takes no stand on AGW, but one doesn't have to in order to see the lack of character and integrity of Mann, Hansen, and the like in his dealings with them. You could get all the detailed info you could possibly want, for example, about the "hockey stick" via his site - but you'd run into a lot of trouble getting the same from Mann (whose recent work regarding Antarctica was also debunked as mathematical hyjinx). There have been a lot of posts there where they try to puzzle out all kinds of "adjustments" Hansen throws onto his temperature data as well - the adjustments can be pretty outrageous. "Conveniently", the historical US data he controls gets a steeper and steeper slope every year, while it simultaneously diverges from satellite data more and more. The time period in the 70s where scientists were warning of an oncoming ice age is barely recognizable any more, as is the relatively warm Dust Bowl era. Nobody's crying "fraud" outright, but it seems pretty obviously Stalin-esque to me.

In general, though, you should keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the alarmists because they are the ones making the extraordinary claims, and demanding extraordinary claims upon your property and freedoms.

You should also realize that you play into the hands of alarmists in the use of their term "deniers", which is intended to create an association with Holocaust deniers, and the like. Leftists are big into trying to control the argument by controlling the language, so that tells you a lot about the alarmists right there.

You know, it used to be that alarmists would simply start screaming that you were in the pocket of some evil oil company whenever they ran into trouble defending their position. Now it seems the ad hominem attack is that you must be an anti-science Intelligent Design type. For the record, I rarely (if ever) post on the ID threads because that it's so obvious that ID is Creationism disguised as science that I don't see much to really talk about. The thing is, the Chicken Littles of climate alarmism are also anti-science. Their insistence of pushing speculative computer models as "settled science" (within a field that's in its infancy, no less!), along with their fascist campaign to try to silence debate, is going to lower the standing of scientists in the public eye for at least a generation.

"Coincidentally", scientists in the employ (directly, or indirectly) of Big Govt tend to lean towards the Big Govt end of the political spectrum, just the same as the teachers in education. This has had a corrupting influence on both, and that's a big problem. I'd suggest the Founders didn't go far enough with the Separation of (only) Church and State, but they did - it's just that the 10th Amendment is universally ignored.

557 nomra  Thu, May 14, 2009 4:49:21am

re: #245 Charles
Check out the hassles the guys at Climate Audit went through to get access to the data and methodology that the "realclimate" guys (Mann et al) used to produce the hockey stick.
I consider their stonewalling of a proper examination of their conclusions to precisely equivalent to Monkton's BS. While Monkton cherry picks the timeframe, RC cherrypicks their temperature proxies and algorithms and each gets their predetermined result.
Hanson constantly adjusts his temperature records which invariably become more "hockyish", claims he's been silenced (cough, cough), wants those who disagree with him jailed for high crimes against humanity and nature, supports vandalism (if it's for the cause), and opines that, “the democratic process doesn’t quite seem to be working,” because we don't live a technocracy run by him.
Gotta disagree with you Charles -if either of them is worse, it's Hanson because Monkton's bullshit is less dangerous. Also, choosing the RC guys over guys like Monkton is a bit like choosing Coke over Pepsi.

558 nomra  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:06:51am

re: #556 Optimizer

Hah Optimizer just said it better than I did! I agree completely!
What also really worries me about the whole supposed "consensus" (which is really just the argument from authority fallacy) about global warming, is it that after the hardship and lives lost to being "carbon neutral" fails, and the seas DON'T rise and engulf all the new deserts as the alarmists envision, then people will have even LESS "faith" in science.

559 Curtain of Oz  Thu, May 14, 2009 6:54:19am

Can any of you guys post for me the link that outlines the money Obama pushed to have Gazans relocated in the US? I'm trying to figure out what is true and what is Internet sham.

560 JustAHouseWife  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:11:52am

re: #36 Walter L. Newton

Hey JUSTAHOUSEWIFE, since you down dinged this thread, why don't you jump in here and give us your opinion on the subject, or is that too much to ask?

Sorry, I think it's useless to debate this stuff here. It is even a fluke that I read the comments this morning. I didn' t even try yesterday.
You want my over all opinion on this topic and why I dinged it down?
Here it is :
Real Climate 'reporting' on cherry picking and false data ?
Pot meet kettle.

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of capable scientists who don't buy into the Global Warming Theory of Man Made Climate Change, with equal backgrounds as the Real Climate folks, who have valid reasons and real world data and a damn good argument. Charles could point to them once in awhile.

Real Climate also censors the comment sections on their site, even comments made by the scientists or persons they are ridiculing-that's cherry picking as well-not to mention just darn right sinister, IMHO.

And these other scientists I speak of? -their websites probably aren't paid for or hosted by any political or PR group either.

561 JustAHouseWife  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:15:05am

re: #557 nomra

Exactly!

562 Elle Plater  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:16:55am

re: #459 Charles

Monckton IS a fraud, and not just about climate change:

[Link: scienceblogs.com...]

no offense Charles but I wouldn't try to prove that Monckton is a fraud by linking to someone who has a long history of being a fraud and liar - Tim Lambert. Just ask Tim Blair and many other respectable bloggers.

563 m0rtaar  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:37:41am

Another good site for climate discussion is here:

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

564 martinsmithy  Thu, May 14, 2009 8:15:51am

re: #16 Sharmuta

The truth doesn't need such allies.

Then maybe it isn't the truth.

That's the funny thing about the natural and physical sciences - unlike the "social" sciences there is a nub of objective truth buried beneath all of the spin and interpretation that can't always be explained away.

565 Land Shark  Thu, May 14, 2009 8:22:50am

One of the problems I have with those who believe in man made climate change is that man as the cause of climate change has always been their default position. Considering that the planet's climate, as evident from the geological, fossil and ice core records scientists have studied, has done nothing but change, wouldn't it be more logical to investigate what has caused these countless climate changes in the past rather than come up with a totally new reason, humans? And it is a completely new reason since we can safely assume all previous climate changes, up to and including the Little Ice Age, were not caused by man.

Volcanic eruptions, which supposedly pump out in a matter of days more "greenhouse" gases than man has since the dawn of industrialization, invariably produce global cooling by the fact the particulate matter in the atmosphere blocks some sunlight. This so called "greenhouse effect" must be pretty weak, if it exists at all, to be so easily overwhelmed by the particulate matter in spite of the vast quantities of so called greenhouse gases the volcanoes pump out in a relatively short period of time. And once these particles settle out of the atmosphere, global warming does not result. Things that should make you go "mmmmmmm."

The more I look into "man made climate change" and the climate topic in general, the more people who believe in man made climate change look like the Creationist side of the evolution debate. The fact is climatology is still an evolving (pun intended) science and there's still much being learned, and to be learned.

566 Teh Flowah  Thu, May 14, 2009 8:31:29am

Scientists supporting evolution : good science
Scientists supporting AGW: follow the money/trying to kill capitalism/raise taxes/blah blah blah


Bit of a disconnect don't you think?

567 zombie  Thu, May 14, 2009 9:12:45am

re: #566 Teh Flowah

Scientists supporting evolution : good science
Scientists supporting AGW: follow the money/trying to kill capitalism/raise taxes/blah blah blah

Bit of a disconnect don't you think?

No, not a bit of a disconnect.

The evidence for evolution-through-natural-selection is somewhere around 100% in favor. Creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever. Plus there is no financial incentive to be in favor of evolution.

The evidence for AGW is strong, but not conclusive. There is plenty of room for reasonable doubt and skepticism, as many have showed. Plus, challenging AGW is not anti-scientific - it's still a scientific approach, unlike creationism. Morever, AGW is not a grand "theory" in the manner of evolution-through-natural-selection, but rather just an observed (or presumed, depending on whom you ask) phenomenon.

To compare the two areas of dispute is a false comparison. Creationism denies scientific principles at a fundamental level. Being skeptical about the extent and significance of AGW is in no way anti-scientific.

568 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 9:52:26am

re: #565 Land Shark

The more I look into "man made climate change" and the climate topic in general, the more people who believe in man made climate change look like the Creationist side of the evolution debate.

Isn't it curious, then, that many of the most vocal climate change skeptics are also creationists? James Inhofe, Michele Bachmann, Roy Spencer ... and I could go on.

569 Joetheplumber  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:18:10am

re: #565 Land Shark


The more I look into "man made climate change" and the climate topic in general, the more people who believe in man made climate change look like the Creationist side of the evolution debate. The fact is climatology is still an evolving (pun intended) science and there's still much being learned, and to be learned.

I agree 100% with you. I find it amazing that people who write programs that can't even predict the weather locally a week from now can claim to be sure about how the climate is going to change years from now on a global scale. Any scientist worth his salt would tell you that there are far too many factors to take into account in trying to model 'climate' and that trying to put all the blame on CO2 (when we know so little about the effects on the much more abundant other greenhouse gases such as water vapor) is ridiculous. Interestingly enough, it was the conservative government of Maggie Thatcher that elevated, what was once thought to be an obscure scientific hypothesis (i.e. that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming) into the status of a major international issue (see the following site for more on this connection: [Link: www.john-daly.com...]

570 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:20:08am

re: #567 zombie

I agree with your post, almost 100%. I also thought your previous point early on in this thread was a good one, and that some people went out of their way to give you a hard time for no apparent reason, other than you weren't falling in line with their camp.

My only disagreement is where you say "the evidence for AGW is strong", which is not true at all. I presume that what you refer to is the evidence that shows a warming trend from the 1970s through about 2000 that coincided with an increase in atmospheric CO2 at the same time. A "correlation" is pointed to, and the fact that correlation does not always go along with causality is probably what you mean by it not being conclusive.

This "strong" evidence is yet another example of cherry-picking, however. If you look at other points in the temperature record, you see places where the temperature drops significantly while the CO2 rises. Remember the scare about an ice age coming back in the 70s? The current state of affairs is that global temperature has been pretty stable for about a decade, while the CO2 levels march on up. That means the "strong" evidence is that the climate models the alarmists are so enamored with are wrong. In science, you're supposed to go back to the drawing board when your model doesn't work, but that's not happening here. There's too much money to be had in the illusion of saving the World.

BTW, the idea that most scientists are on board with AGW may be something of an illusion also, and it appears that the more scientists look into the AGW claims (as opposed to just sitting back and accepting what has been sold to them as "settled science"), the less supportive they are. There's a petition of over 32000 scientists questioning AGW. [Link: www.oism.org...] It says, in part,

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The increase in temperatures during the 20th century was well within the realm of natural variation, and it's becoming more obvious every year that CO2 isn't much of a player. (That's why they're getting so desperate.)

571 DeathtotheSwiss  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:24:51am

Penguins and polar bears will benefit with a little warm weather.

572 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:28:56am

re: #568 Charles

Isn't it curious, then, that many of the most vocal climate change skeptics are also creationists? James Inhofe, Michele Bachmann, Roy Spencer ... and I could go on.

This post [Link: www.climate-skeptic.com...] deals with your curiousity in an appropriate, light-hearted way.

You know, guys like Ron Paul and Glenn Beck probably agree with YOU on a lot of things - but that doesn't add or detract from the validity of your stance. Just because somebody is off-the-wall on one issue, it doesn't automatically make them wrong on another. I don't think anybody is making crazy religious claims in trying to dispute AGW.

573 Land Shark  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:37:57am

re: #568 Charles

But I'm not a climate change skeptic, I'm just skeptical that man is the cause. The evidence that climate change happens all the time is irrefutable. But given the frequency with which climate changed long before man supposedly gained the ability to influence it, it's clear to me it's highly unlikely man is a principal cause. I'm very wary of people who've assumed from the beginning that it's man made, precisely because there is overwhelming evidence for climate change being a normal, recurring thing in our planet. It would make more sense to try to find out what caused all these documented changes in the past, rather than inventing a new one to explain our current climate changes, don't you think?

Like I said, I think the skepticism about climate change is not that it happens, rather it's about man being the reason for these changes.

574 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:38:57am

re: #570 Optimizer

BTW, the idea that most scientists are on board with AGW may be something of an illusion also, and it appears that the more scientists look into the AGW claims (as opposed to just sitting back and accepting what has been sold to them as "settled science"), the less supportive they are. There's a petition of over 32000 scientists questioning AGW. [Link: www.oism.org...] It says, in part,

The increase in temperatures during the 20th century was well within the realm of natural variation, and it's becoming more obvious every year that CO2 isn't much of a player. (That's why they're getting so desperate.)

Debunking the Oregon Petition Project.

575 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:41:54am

re: #569 Joetheplumber

Interestingly enough, it was the conservative government of Maggie Thatcher that elevated, what was once thought to be an obscure scientific hypothesis (i.e. that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming) into the status of a major international issue (see the following site for more on this connection: [Link: www.john-daly.com...]

Richard S. Courtney - SourceWatch:

Richard S. Courtney is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). [1] In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management.

576 razvedchik  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:44:55am

I dunno...I never associated lizards with lynchin' before...but reminds me of The Oxbow Incident somehow... Maybe it's just the black&white aspect like in a 1943 movie. Apocalypse No! was at least in color.

"It was as if he believed he could solve the whole question of their guilt or innocence by just looking at them and thinking his own thoughts; the occupation pleased him."

577 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:47:47am

re: #576 razvedchik

The Science and Public Policy Institute site is Christopher Monckton's prime outlet for his propaganda. Are we supposed to be surprised that it defends him?

578 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:48:37am

Razvedchik

Registered since: May 18, 2007 at 7:01 pm
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0

Registered for two years, and that's your first comment. Hmm.

579 Pythagoras  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:53:49am

re: #568 Charles

Isn't it curious, then, that many of the most vocal climate change skeptics are also creationists? James Inhofe, Michele Bachmann, Roy Spencer ... and I could go on.

But the leading AGW skeptics are Lindzen, Singer, Coleman, Pielke, Bryson (deceased), Watts, Lomborg, Daly (deceased), McIntyre, McKitrick, et al. Monckton and Spencer are also among the leaders but the creationist percentage is not high.

Look, the AGW scientists must wince every time they ponder that their titular leader is AL Gore. You can't exclude people from a movement. The environmental movement have some flagship nuts in it too (e.g. the unabomber). Should that discredit the whole movement?

Decide based on the data and the logic. Assume all the people involved are human.

580 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:58:09am

re: #579 Pythagoras

You can't exclude people from a movement. The environmental movement have some flagship nuts in it too (e.g. the unabomber). Should that discredit the whole movement?

I didn't even come close to saying that the presence of many creationists on the anti-AGW side "discredits the whole movement." I was simply responding to a point that keeps being raised over and over in these threads, comparing environmental scientists to creationists. The fact is that the creationists are all on the anti-AGW side -- and that includes the Discovery Institute.

581 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:00:11am

re: #572 Optimizer

This post [Link: www.climate-skeptic.com...] deals with your curiousity in an appropriate, light-hearted way.

Complete with a glaring misspelling in big letters.

582 Pythagoras  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:08:21am

re: #580 Charles

I didn't even come close to saying that the presence of many creationists on the anti-AGW side "discredits the whole movement." I was simply responding to a point that keeps being raised over and over in these threads, comparing environmental scientists to creationists. The fact is that the creationists are all on the anti-AGW side -- and that includes the Discovery Institute.

Whole denominations that are creationist have published strong statements in support of limiting CO2 to ameliorate AGW. They obviously don't count as scientists, but still, "all" isn't accurate.

My point is that whether some of the most vocal AGW skeptics are creationists doesn't even rise to the level of being "curious." There may be a correlation, or there may not. It's not worth researching.

583 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:12:47am

re: #582 Pythagoras

Whole denominations that are creationist have published strong statements in support of limiting CO2 to ameliorate AGW.

Link?

584 razvedchik  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:27:36am

re: #578 Charles

Razvedchik

Registered since: May 18, 2007 at 7:01 pm
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0

Registered for two years, and that's your first comment. Hmm.

Must have struck a nerve, Charles. You seem to posting over the norm on this issue, too...for some reason.

Long-time fan, usually never even log in. Rather just play on my Telecaster with autoscroll on...

585 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:33:14am

re: #584 razvedchik

Must have struck a nerve, Charles. You seem to posting over the norm on this issue, too...for some reason.

If it makes you feel important to believe you "struck a nerve," knock yourself out.

586 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:47:25am

re: #574 Charles

Debunking the Oregon Petition Project.

This guy does an especially poor "debunking" job if you actually read it.

First of all, he claims that the "argument from authority" is invalid. This is kind of outrageous, since the whole point of the petition is to de-bunk the alarmist claim that there is a scientific "consensus" - in other words, it's to dispell the prevailing alarmist argument from authority (which seems to be your own argument on this topic, BTW). Nothing on the web site, or in the petition, suggests that the volume of scientists in any way reinforces their point. Like any petition, the point is political activism. The petition itself does not pretend to add to the debate in of itself. In summary, they don't make any claims about how they're right because there are so many of them, but alarmist do. Can you say "projection"?

As to the the claim of "false authority", what we have in this petition is an excellent example of transparency. They are very up-front and open about the qualifications of the signers, and leave it to the reader to decide for themselves about how they feel about it. In contrast, IPCC reports have been published, touting the large number of "scientists" who are on board, and when you look into it you find that many of them are actually politicians, that many had dissenting views that were redacted or ignored, and that many were unqualified to put forward an opinion. This is true in general of the AGW crowd - not being willing to open up their work for public inspection. The skeptics crowd is just the opposite.

Oh, and his point about people in related fields not having a legitimate voice in this is just plain wrong. Like any good narcissist, if someone gives a view he doesn't like, he simply pronounces their opinion "invalid", rather than address the actual argument. Mann was de-bunked by a retired statistician.

The guy even goes on to criticize a previous effort, ignoring the point he is implicitly making that these guys have cleaned up some flaws they might have had in their methods earlier. Isn't that what they call a "straw-man"?

587 charles_martel  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:50:07am

re: #146 Liberal Classic

If conservatives want traction among science-literate people, they are going to have to take a firm stand in favor of scientific consensus.

OK, I'll bite. In the 1970's there was a scientific consensus that global cooling was a big danger. I'll support that scientific consensus.....

The problem is, scientific consenses change over time, when new information is introduced. Also, there were/are many scientific fads that come and go. REAL scientists always keep an open mind, and do not try to shut down debate.

588 razvedchik  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:51:02am

re: #585 Charles

No...no...no. I don't believe I struck any nerves. The "Another Monckton Climate Change Fraud" title struck a nerve. My nerve. Enough to get me to post a comment for the first time in two years.

See why I don't post? I didn't express myself clearly and now I'm tangled up in green... Which reminds me of a song. Back to autoscroll.

589 dcbatlle  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:54:42am

Wow. This blog has really changed since I joined in 2003. I can't imagine that most of the people that joined back then still hang around here much. All things change, I guess.

590 charles_martel  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:58:33am

re: #574 Charles

It's the same thing as a "scientific consensus" supporting AGW. That's an "appeal to authority" as well.

591 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:58:58am

re: #589 dcbatlle

No, it hasn't. I've always called out people who lie and misrepresent scientific data, and I'm still doing it. I guess it doesn't bother you when people like Monckton lie, because it backs up your pre-conceived notions.

592 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:59:58am

re: #590 charles_martel

It's the same thing as a "scientific consensus" supporting AGW. That's an "appeal to authority" as well.

No, it is not. There is a scientific consensus supporting AGW, among scientists who are qualified in environmental studies.

593 Pythagoras  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:03:01pm

re: #583 Charles

Link?

Wow. The time between your post and this post was not due to my going to lunch. I have a whale of a time connecting my recollections to a link.

This link does not prove my point because it doesn't list its membership (that I could find). These guys used to be popular among creationist churches. "Used to" is important though.

[Link: christiansandclimate.org...]

So, I'll concede failure on being able to link my contention. I still say this doesn't matter much. If we want to cite idiots who can't seem to get anything right and where they stand on Global Warming, let's talk about the UN.

Or anyone who was behind banning DDT.

594 dcbatlle  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:06:50pm

re: #591 Charles

I've always called out people who lie and misrepresent scientific data, and I'm still doing it. I guess it doesn't bother you when people like Monckton lie, because it backs up your pre-conceived notions.

There isn't a bigger example of lying and misrepresenting data than the global warming hoax. When are you going to call them out? I guess it doesn't back up your pre-conceived notion.

This blog is barely recognizable from the blog I joined in 2003 when you did the Prager show.

595 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:08:47pm

re: #593 Pythagoras

So, I'll concede failure on being able to link my contention. I still say this doesn't matter much. If we want to cite idiots who can't seem to get anything right and where they stand on Global Warming, let's talk about the UN.

Again, I was not making the point about creationists in order to "discredit the anti-AGW movement." I was responding to a point that is raised in every environmental thread, comparing pro-AGW scientists to creationists. I think this point is extremely wrong-headed, because the fact is that creationists almost invariably come down on the anti-AGW side of the debate. And I only say almost invariably because I don't know for sure that there aren't creationists who are pro-AGW -- but if there are, I haven't encountered any of them.

596 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:15:43pm

re: #594 dcbatlle

There isn't a bigger example of lying and misrepresenting data than the global warming hoax. When are you going to call them out? I guess it doesn't back up your pre-conceived notion.

Can you cite an example of this "lying and misrepresenting data" you're so sure is taking place?

This blog is barely recognizable from the blog I joined in 2003 when you did the Prager show.

Everything I've said on the Dennis Prager show I still believe. Your mistake is thinking that because you agreed with some of my opinions, that meant I agreed with all of yours.

597 Pythagoras  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:18:36pm

re: #595 Charles

Again, I was not making the point about creationists in order to "discredit the anti-AGW movement." I was responding to a point that is raised in every environmental thread, comparing pro-AGW scientists to creationists. I think this point is extremely wrong-headed, because the fact is that creationists almost invariably come down on the anti-AGW side of the debate. And I only say almost invariably because I don't know for sure that there aren't creationists who are pro-AGW -- but if there are, I haven't encountered any of them.

Oh, I apologize for my obtuseness -- and taking too much of your time. I'll go back and reread. I do agree with the general position that AGW is a religion for many folks. I'll even agree with the calling them Kool-Ade drinkers (on poetic license). The analogy with creationists is sloppy.

By the way, it's been so long since the Jim Jones cult spawned the phrase "drink the Kool-Ade" I wonder how many people who use the expression know of its origin.

598 charles_martel  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:19:34pm

re: #592 Charles


No, it is not. There is a scientific consensus supporting AGW, among scientists who are qualified in environmental studies.

Just like the scientific consensus which stated we were in global cooling and were headed for another ice age? I lived through that in the 70's. Scientific "consenses" and paradigms change all the time. I put my bets on satellite temperature data, which shows no heating in the last 40 years. The surface readings are wildly inaccurate, as shown by surfacestation.org.

599 dcbatlle  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:24:08pm

re: #596 Charles

Can you cite an example of this "lying and misrepresenting data" you're so sure is taking place?

There are so many. Like the tiny insignificant little lie about CO2 levels rising causing warming, when in fact the charts show warming preceded the CO2 rises. Tiny little insignificant lies like that. I'm guessing your won't be calling that out any time soon.

Your mistake is thinking that because you agreed with some of my opinions, that meant I agreed with all of yours.

Indeed. That was definitely my bad.

600 Elle Plater  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:27:21pm

Charles, I'm surprised that on this subject you aren't little more skeptical about some of the links that you have linked to which have a political agenda and have been known to use the very type of dishonestly that you accuse Monckton of. I'm surprised because normally you are very good at background checks.

Here is an interesting admission:

It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

MONIKA KOPACZ
Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

The main reason I turned skeptic from AGW believer is because of the wild exaggerations coming form the AGW side and seeing AGW having all the characteristics of a fundamentalist religion. Also there are a lot of very honest scientists who are skeptics and who are not creationists. There are also many creationists who are AGW believers. Take Al Gore for example.

601 charles_martel  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:30:11pm

re: #598 charles_martel

correction: no heating in the last 30 years.

602 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:35:06pm

re: #599 dcbatlle

There are so many. Like the tiny insignificant little lie about CO2 levels rising causing warming, when in fact the charts show warming preceded the CO2 rises. Tiny little insignificant lies like that. I'm guessing your won't be calling that out any time soon.

I won't be calling that out as a "lie" because it is not a lie. ‘CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags’—Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming.

When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.

Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. This remarkably detailed archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause for rising temperatures, while also revealing it can be an effect of them.

The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (the Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight to fall in the northern hemisphere. This is a small forcing, but it caused ice to retreat in the north, which changed the albedo. This change -- reducing the amount of white, reflective ice surface -- led to further warmth, in a feedback effect. Some number of centuries after that process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise, which amplified the warming trend even further as an additional feedback mechanism.

(You can go here for a discussion of exactly this question by climate scientists, with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature.)

So it is correct that CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it definitely contributed to them -- and according to climate theory and model experiments, greenhouse gas forcing was the dominant factor in the magnitude of the ultimate change.

603 Land Shark  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:35:41pm

re: #595 Charles

I understand where you're coming from. But from my experience and from looking into the issue, many people who believe in man made climate change act in a way that to me looks very similar to that of Creationists who rail against evolution. Instead of debating the issue in a rational way, many of them instead demonize those who question climate change being a man made thing. I recall one guy even hinted at punishing those who question man made climate change! It's that side that seems hell bent on shutting down debate and research into the issue.

My view is that we need more scientific research into this subject. Compared to other areas of science, we have only just started to study climate and are only know starting to become aware of it's complexities and the different factors that may or may not affect it.

I have no doubt many who question climate change, or rather that man is the cause of it do so out of political reasons or other non science reasons. I get that. But from were I stand there are very clear scientific reasons to doubt it too. There are many credible scientists asking questions and doubting man made climate change. To insist we end the debate and do something about it, while the science and understanding of the climate and how it works is still in it's infancy doesn't make much sense to me.

604 MacGregor  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:37:46pm

Hi Charles. Man, you're keeping busy with this topic. Hats off to you for your patience. I know I've been bullheaded about this for years because of an argument with Spanish socialist in-laws. Every point made against their socialist ideology was ultimately countered with an agw argument against capitalism and individual liberty. So I am guilty of an ideological position against agw.

I think the big misrepresentation by Gore was that warming follows CO2 and it does not. I posted a link last week about a childrens' school book which modified a chart to misrepresent exactly this.

Also, we've been dumbed-down to believe warming does not increase hurricane activity. The media won't admit the reduction in hurricanes coincides with cooler temps.

I'm not convinced CO2 drives climate as the IPCC tells us because CO2 has been climbing while the planet's temperatures have dropped. Historically, CO2 drops afterward.

605 shortshrift  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:40:48pm

re: #574 Charles
Well, you did link to a counter-argument, though as you might say, hmmmm.
The article you link to, "Debunking the Oregon Petition Project" was written by one Michael Ashcroft, a physics student, "passionate about the environment and energy issues" who wants "a career in environmental and energy fields." A career not in coal, I imagine.
His first point that "appeals to authority" - appeal to the authority of a consensus of clever people - are fellacious, apply equally to those who claim that there is a "consensus of scientists " believe in CO2 induced global warming. The point of the petition (and other similar petitions) was to challenge the warmist "consensus".
His subsequent point that those scientists whose disciplines are mathematics, medicine, physics, biology, aeronautical engineering, and computer science do not ipso facto have the expertise to sign a petition on climate matters shows his ignorance of how these disciplines, particularly mathematics (statistics) and physics, do indeed participate in climate science. Alarmists doctors and biologists have entered into the fray with dire predictions about the spread of diseases thanks to warming. Ashcroft has not done his homework as to the many different fields of science and non-science (government, journalism) that the AGW consensus emerges from. And if a scientist can link his research, however remotely, to climate change, he will be more likely to get a grant.
In any case, a petition expresses a view that the signatories agree with - how they come to that view does not have to be authenticated. The presence of a document with an iffy graph on the petition website does not invalidate the signatures as it is not what they are endorsing. Certainly false names and identities should be discounted - that still leaves many genuine signatories. (David Irving's line of attack on the Holocaust was to chip away at the number of people who died in the gas ovens. Claiming to have shown the numbers were lower than those put about by other historians, he thinks that the whole notion of genocide has been impugned.)
In any case, who in Ashcroft's view would be sufficiently qualified to speak on climate matters? Meteorologists? Computer modelers? Environmental and Energy Studies graduates? Even among these ranks, there are skeptics.
Ashcroft concludes about the petition: "Its methodology is flawed, its motives are highly biased, and its conclusions are misleading." I think he would benefit from a course in petitionology, if not logic. But good luck to the lad.

606 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:45:51pm

re: #605 shortshrift

Michael Ashcroft is far from the only person who says the Oregon Petition is bunk.

[Link: www.skeptic.com...]

[Link: rabett.blogspot.com...]

[Link: www.desmogblog.com...]

[Link: moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com...]

[Link: moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com...]

That petition has very little credibility.

607 Mr. Hamlet  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:50:10pm

Charles -

Have you seen this site?
[Link: junkscience.com...]

608 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 12:54:42pm

re: #607 Mr. Hamlet

Charles -

Have you seen this site?
[Link: junkscience.com...]

JunkScience.com - SourceWatch

609 shortshrift  Thu, May 14, 2009 1:00:48pm

re: #592 Charles

It is not surprising that there should be a "consensus supporting AGW" among the ranks of "qualified" environmental scientists. Environmental science is AGW. Your qualification is in AGW. Then you get a grant to study and promulgate AGW. And AGW starts in elementary school.

610 shortshrift  Thu, May 14, 2009 1:49:15pm

re: #606 Charles

Thank you for the additional links.
The tautological premise of the petition debunkers (and as I've stated, the Oregon petition is not the only one) is that no scientist other than AGW scientists can be deemed to be qualified to challenge AGW. Other scientists who sign anti-AGW petitions do not understand AGW, or are dupes of the petition organizers who have other agendas. In this way, there will always be an AGW consensus among AGW scientists, guaranteed.
Petitions are not science, they are not scientific surveys, they are not peer reviews. They are closest to opinion polls, but where they reveal a contrary opinion to AGW, they are dismissed for all those reasons!

611 Galroc  Thu, May 14, 2009 1:58:54pm

What facts has Charles shown to support his view of AGW is real? He hand waves about scientific consensus, and post links to blogs, and a well known propaganda site for AGW (realclimate).

Fact 1: Arctic Ice Extent, as of this moment, is greater than the last 7 years and is within the normal range of the last 30 years.

Fact 2: Antarctic Ice Extent, as of this moment, way above normal.

Fact 3: Ocean temperatures have dropped in the last 5-7 years, despite predictions by models. That is a MASSIVE amount of heat lost. Where did it go?

Fact 4: Air temperature has not increased in the last 5-7 years despite predictions by models.

Fact 5: [CO2] is continuing to rise.

Fact 6: [CO2] lags temperature.

Fact 7: The Sun is in quiet period and it could be a significant.

Fact 8: The greenhouse heat signature that is supposed to be in the troposphere, predicted by models, is not there.

Fact 9: Climate changes all the time, and we need to adapt or go extinct.

Charles, what specific facts are you backing up your belief of AGW? I am specifically asking about AGW, not GW.

612 shortshrift  Thu, May 14, 2009 2:01:52pm

re: #608 Charles

And while I'm at it, who sourcewatches sourcewatch? Anti-tobacco, anti- big business, pro-Sandinista, activist lefties would necessarily believe that merely pointing out a big-business or political affiliation is sufficient to dismiss an opponent's argument. Ad hominem is only ever countered by ad hominem.

613 Martinsmithy  Thu, May 14, 2009 2:25:23pm

re: #579 Pythagoras

You list Bjorn Lomborg as a "climate change skeptic". As has been ably documented earlier on this thread, Lomborg is not a climate change skeptic. His position, succinctly stated, is that climate change is occurring, but we must be sure that the "cure" is not worse than the "disease."

Which is an eminently sensible position, IMHO.

re: #596 Charles

Everything I've said on the Dennis Prager show I still believe. Your mistake is thinking that because you agreed with some of my opinions, that meant I agreed with all of yours.

Touche! I give you a huge amount of credit and admiration, Charles, for not being tied to shibboleths and mantras long after they have been disproven and worn out - and being willing to rethink issues and even admit mistakes based upon new evidence. Which is much more than can be said for many of your former, and even a few of your current, commenters.

I may not always agree with you, but I respect you immensely.

614 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 3:22:22pm

re: #605 shortshrift

Come to think of it, one funny thing about Ashcroft's "debunking" of the Oregon Petition is that he explicitly declares himself as disqualified to weigh in on the subject. So he's got a glaring logical inconsistency problem right there. College kids can have useful and meaningful things to say, but this case is just not a good example of that. Heh.

But it looks like you missed the part about how his complaints of false names and identities do not even apply to this petition, but to a previous effort by the same org. Apparently that quality control issue had been resolved for the subject petition (but he made it sound like it applied anyway, didn't he?).

Looks like Charles has a few more links to try to debunk this. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Despite being a logical falacy, the "consensus" bit is central to the AGW argument, and so they would want to try to discredit questions about its existence - with a vengence. (Ironically, while crying "foul" on this alleged "argument from authority"!) Besides, it's not like this college kid thought that stuff up all by himself!

I'll take a look at those links, but I doubt they will have much to say. The Petition is pretty straightforward, and they're pretty transparent on who the signers are, and what their qualifications are. I could be wrong, but unless you're talking about claiming some massive fraud (which the kid probably would have known about, and brought up) I don't see where you can go with this. The point is irrelevant to the debate on AGW anyway, since the alarmists' treasured claim of "consensus" is irrelevant to the discussion.

615 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 3:38:26pm

re: #611 Galroc

What facts has Charles shown to support his view of AGW is real? He hand waves about scientific consensus, and post links to blogs, and a well known propaganda site for AGW (realclimate).

...

Actually, one of the odd things about the reference to RealClimate is that - according to Charles - the owner of that site is (my words) a screw-up. That he - the "hockey stick's" Mann - used bad data in making his discredited plot. I personally think the evidence is there to call Mann a collossal fraud, but even in Charles' more generous estimation the guy should be considered a major screw-up. Ordinarily, I would expect such a source to be condemned with vicious ad hominems here, not quoted.

616 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 3:56:57pm

re: #602 Charles

This all sounds like hand-waving to me, but let's assume for the moment that there's a legitimate point to be made here. (And why not? Conditions on Earth a million years ago might easily have been different enough from today to be largely irrelevant to modern climate discussion.)

The point about CO2 and the ice core samples is that Gore put this data forward as evidence of CO2-induced global warming in his movie, when just looking at the facts - as he presented them - showed otherwise. The argument being made in this article is essentially that the ice core data is irrelevant to the discussion of CO2 impacts on climate. So they were OK with it when they thought it supported their case, but when it turned out it didn't, suddenly it's irrelevant.

Either way, it shows that Gore was wrong on this in his movie. Why does Gore get a pass when he spreads falsehoods like this? You could chalk it up to an honest mistake (as with Mann), but to my knowledge he hasn't admitted to any errors, and (as has been alluded to in another post) actually still publishes this stuff in books for school kids. At this point, it's pretty generous not to call Gore's antics "fraud".

617 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 4:01:24pm

More about those famous leading scientists on the IPCC panel:

The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.


13. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Niño, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).


14. The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors. Much of the emphasis was on "changes in geographic range (latitude and altitude) and incidence (intensity and seasonality) of many vector-borne diseases" as "predicted" by computer models. Extensive coverage was given to these models, although they were all based on a highly simplistic model originally developed as an aid to malaria control campaigns. The authors acknowledged that the models did not take into account "the influence of local demographic, socioeconomic, and technical circumstances".


15. Glaring indicators of the ignorance of the authors included the statement that "although anopheline mosquito species that transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperature drops below 16-18ºC, some higher latitude species are able to hibernate in sheltered sites". In truth, many tropical species must survive in temperature below this limit, and many temperate species can survive temperatures of -25ºC, even in "relatively exposed" places.


16. The authors also claimed that climate change was already causing malaria to move to higher altitudes (eg in Rwanda). They quoted information published by non-specialists that had been roundly denounced in the scientific literature. In the years that followed, these claims have repeatedly been made by environmental activists, despite rigorous investigation and overwhelming counter-evidence by some of the world's top malaria specialists. [85]Moreover, climate models suggest that temperature changes will be relatively small in the tropics, and carefully recorded meteorological data—eg in the Brook-Bond tea estates in Kenya—shows no demonstrable warming since the 1920s. The IPCC authors even claimed that "a relatively small increase in winter temperature" in Kenya (!) "could extend mosquito habitat and enable . . . malaria to reach beyond the usual altitude limit of around 2,500m to the large malaria free urban highland populations, eg Nairobi. This despite the fact that in the 1960s the mosquitoes were present above 3,000m and Nairobi is at only 1,600m!


17. A similar claim was made that the dengue vector, Stegomyia aegypti was once limited to 1,000m in Colombia but had "recently been reported above 2,200m" One of the authors (the activist with the 32 different specialities) had recently published a claim (in The Lancet) that dengue had reached 2,200m "in the past 15 years". I had pointed out (again in The Lancet) that the publication he was quoting had categorically stated that dengue was not found above 1,750m. Moreover, although the maximum altitude of 2,200 m for the mosquito had been established (by two colleagues of mine) in 1979, this was the first ever investigation of the issue, so there was no evidence of an increase in altitude! Since that time, he has abandoned the claim that dengue has moved to higher altitudes, but still claims (eg in Janurary 2005 at a UNESCO conference in Paris) that the mosquito has leapt from 1,000 to 2,200m in a matter of 15 years.

618 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 4:16:52pm

re: #615 Optimizer

Actually, one of the odd things about the reference to RealClimate is that - according to Charles - the owner of that site is (my words) a screw-up. That he - the "hockey stick's" Mann - used bad data in making his discredited plot. I personally think the evidence is there to call Mann a collossal fraud, but even in Charles' more generous estimation the guy should be considered a major screw-up. Ordinarily, I would expect such a source to be condemned with vicious ad hominems here, not quoted.

That's a ridiculously simplistic and misleading summation of the facts around that controversy. It's absolutely not as simple or clear-cut as you're making it sound.

Here's a fairly good, balanced description of the issue:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

619 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 4:26:31pm

Didn't James Hansen cause the AGW-hysteria in 1988 with data from less than one decade?

Remember that when James Hansen testified in front of the US Government about the perils of global warming he did so in 1988 with less than a decade of credible warming data to back up his views. If one was generous with an interpretation of his analysis of the available scientific data of the time one would say he was acting in precautionary mode. But what is the difference in terms of science and philosophy from using less than a decade of warming data to say 'look there might be something going on here' from looking at a longer period of no increase of global average temperatures and saying 'look there may be something going on here.'

(David Whitehouse)

620 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 4:36:36pm

re: #606 Charles

I got through the first link, and actually found it to be better than I expected. Apparently, the sponsor DOES make a claim or two about the meaning of his petition which go too far. It's legitimate to criticize him calling it a "survey", but nitpicky to cherry-pick a claim made in a single interview.

But the practice of sending out an opinion piece with a petition is legit. "This is my argument, will you sign this petition saying you agree?" The author feels this is unfair, but that is because he pretends that this is supposed to be a survey, which is it is not. Apparently, a given scientist is not to be trusted with reading an opinion piece and then forming their own opinion about it.

Then he nit-picks on the semantics of "consensus". Oddly, he admits

Of course if we use the “unanimity” definition of “consensus”, then Robinson’s Global Warming Petition Project shows that a consensus of persons with science degrees, even those with relevant degrees, does not support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. But this is a trivial conclusion; we knew this before the petition drive!

He then goes on to presume that an inadequate number of the petitioners are qualified enough for their opinion to count. He conveniently ignores the fact that the number of "climate scientists" is actually pretty small, so if even a small percentage of the petitioners meet his unspecified qualifications, it would be enough to dispell any reasonable claim of "consensus".

He also tries to nit-pick that the petition has multiple claims within it, and the respondants did not have the opportunity to select which claims they argeed with, and which they didn't. This is not a legitimate point, however. The petition is clear - if you sign, it's because you agree with ALL of it. It's strictly an all-or-nothing deal.

Most significantly, he ignores that it's the alarmists who make the "consensus" claim that is so vital to their cause (even though it has that "argument by authority" fallacy problem). So the onus is on them to show who is on board with this grand consensus they claim. Where's THEIR petition? We're just supposed to believe that everybody's on board, without anybody standing up and saying so. (And not ask how many of them depend on the AGW scare for their livelihoods?)

621 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 4:40:36pm

"State of Fear" by NASA's (and Columbia U's) James Hansen (pdf):

Hansen is writing about his 1988 testimony that relied on a general climate model to present a scary picture of the future. Crichton, according to Hansen, said Hansen had used these projections to exaggerate the threat by 300%. But according to Hansen, in the linked critique, Crichton was exaggerating, based on the highest projected line, Scenario A, which Hansen said he had characterized as unlikely. Instead, Hansen claimed, actual temperatures had closely followed his scenario B. He adds an actual temperature track to his 1988 graph to demonstrate this through 2004. But Hansen does not append his original testimony, which can be found at (pdf):

In his original testimony, you will see, Hansen did not characterize scenario A ""as 'on the high side of reality' " as he says in his critique of Crichton, but as "business as usual." Scenario B, he says, assumes some reduction in the rate of GHG accumulation, and Scenario C assumes "draconian" measures to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere by 2000. Hansen in his critique of Crichton mischaracterizes his own testimony, and uses this distortion to try to discredit Crichton.

At the link below are two essays that plot actual historical data against the Hansen forecasts:

And here is the UK Met Office Hadley Centre historical temperature record:

Eyeballing it, it appears that compared to Hansen's 2005 diatribe and its accompanying chart, the Hadley Centre reports recent temperature anomalies lower than claimed by Hansen, even going back to 1998. Furthermore, temperatures since 2004 follow or fall below Hansen's 1988 projection in "Scenario C" that assumed "draconian" cuts in GHG. Crichton's claim that Hansen's projections exaggerate the real case by 300 percent looks modest compared to what has happened, and he clearly wins this debate. Hansen's projections have been falsified by reality.

(Andrew Hamilton)

622 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:01:58pm

Dr Theon is the former Chief of the Climate Processing Research Program at NASA Headquaters, and a former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics and Radiation Branch, and a former boss of Al Gore’s chief scientific advisor James Hansen.


Dr Theon has been very public and upfront in “his coming” out declaring that “climate models are useless” and more:

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit … Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

623 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:09:03pm

re: #618 Charles

That's a ridiculously simplistic and misleading summation of the facts around that controversy. It's absolutely not as simple or clear-cut as you're making it sound.

Here's a fairly good, balanced description of the issue:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

My "summation" was taken from a guy calling himself "Charles" back up in #212. He said,

But the bottom line with the "hockey stick" graph: the most you can say about it is that it was based on mistaken information. NOT deliberately falsified information.

So, according to Charles, the guy clearly screwed up, by using "mistaken information". But we're supposed to listen to him anyway, after that collosal blunder? That was my point.

The Wikipedia article doesn't really clarify anything (and is suspect anyway, of course, because of the polical nature of the subject). Actually, it seems to try to muddy the waters, even though Mann's original graph is shown to be pretty bad, even according to that article.

Anybody who really wants to dig into it should visit McIntyre's site, climateaudit.org, which has a wealth on info available on this. McIntyre has such credibility that even the alarmist crowd is afraid to try to throw stones at him (the best they can do is call him a "former mining executive"), and his site shows a very high level of transparency as to exactly what he's doing (unlike Mann, who is generally dismissive of criticism and uncooperative and secretive in defending his work). A reader with questions would probably even get an answer, if they emailed him (again, this is unlike Mann), or posted on his site. He doesn't come out and call Mann a fraud, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

624 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:14:12pm

re: #621 zuckerlilly

Kinda reminds you of Pelosi these days, don't it?

625 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:14:45pm

THE WORLD HAS NEVER SEEN SUCH FREEZING HEAT

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

(...)

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

626 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:17:26pm

re: #622 zuckerlilly

This can only mean that Dr Theon works for an oil company and/or the Discovery Institute now. ;)

627 hopperandadropper  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:18:24pm

re: #534 ShanghaiEd

I think AGW is BS and I think ID is BS. I am a biologist, and I know plenty of scientists who feel the same way I do about both issues. Spencer might very well be wrong about evolution (which he certainly is, and which falls outside his area of expertise) and right about AGW. They're not connected. Linus Pauling may have been wrong about the benefits of huge doses of vitamin C, but that doesn't mean he was wrong about other aspects of chemistry. In science you judge the argument on its merits, not on the basis of who is making it.

628 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:22:19pm

And a last one (it's 2:30 in the morning here)

Allegations of fraud at Albany - the Wang case

Professor Wei-Chyung Wang is a star scientist in the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at the University at Albany, New York. He is a key player in the climate change debate (see his self-description here). Wang has been accused of scientific fraud.

I have no inclination to "weigh in" on the topic of climate change. However the case involves issues of integrity that are at the very core of proper science. These issues are the same whether they are raised in a pharmaceutical clinical trial, in a basic science laboratory, by a climate change "denialist" or a "warmist". The case involves the hiding of data, access to data, and the proper description of "method" in science.

The case is also of interest because it provides yet another example of how *not* to create trust in a scientific misconduct investigation. It adds to the litany of cases suggesting that Universities cannot be allowed to investigate misconduct of their own star academics. The University response has so far been incoherent on its face.

Doug Keenan, the mathematician who raised the case of Wang is on the "sceptic" side of the climate change debate. He maintains that "almost by itself, the withholding of their raw data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists".

Below is my own summary of the straightforward substance of this case. I wrote to Wei-Chyung Wang, to Lynn Videka (VP at Albany, responsible for the investigation), and to John H. Reilly (a lawyer at Albany) asking for any correction or comments on the details presented below. My request was acknowledged prior to publication, but no factual correction was suggested.

(...)

629 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:28:21pm

re: #625 zuckerlilly

Note how McIntyre and Watts had to do extensive reverse engineering because of Hansen's secrecy.

This was too big - and too simple - of a blunder to suspect fraud (this time), but it's still a pretty big blunder (and not the first). But we're supposed to believe in Hansen's credibility anyway - because he's a big-shot scientist, and speaks for the "consensus"!

630 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:33:48pm

re: #623 Optimizer

My "summation" was taken from a guy calling himself "Charles" back up in #212.

Absolutely not. I wrote that the most you could say is that the data was mistaken -- not that it was a "colossal blunder." Those were your words, not mine -- and I do not agree.

631 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:35:48pm

re: #626 Optimizer


cheeky monkey ;-)

AGW and ID are the two sides of the same coin. It is a belief-system.

Good night all.

632 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:40:00pm

re: #631 zuckerlilly

cheeky monkey ;-)

AGW and ID are the two sides of the same coin. It is a belief-system.

Good night all.

No, they're not. The fact is that more than a few anti-AGW celebrities are either hardcore young earth creationists, or ID proponents. The correlation between ID and AGW is all on the anti-AGW side.

633 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 5:46:43pm

re: #630 Charles

Absolutely not. I wrote that the most you could say is that the data was mistaken -- not that it was a "colossal blunder." Those were your words, not mine -- and I do not agree.

I thought I was clear in what I wrote that, yes, it was my interpretation, although based on your summary of the facts. If you don't want to call using "mistaken data" in this context a "collosal blunder" that is certainly your right (especially since this is your blog, of course). Clearly it is a matter of opinion.

634 zuckerlilly  Thu, May 14, 2009 6:08:33pm

re: #632 Charles

No, they're not. The fact is that more than a few anti-AGW celebrities are either hardcore young earth creationists, or ID proponents. The correlation between ID and AGW is all on the anti-AGW side.


Charles,

with due respect, but when the right-wing extremists in Europe occupy the European immigration problems have I to deny those problems because I want nothing have to do with them? Should I close my eyes?

No, Charles, I couldn't care less what they say and I will fight for reasonable solutions and better integration. Otherwise I would surrender to this right wing mob.

And please, Charles, name some of the many ID believers of the anti-AGW and discuss their science not their private belief. If their science is wrong, if their data are wrong then fight them. But not for their private belief. Behe et.al. misused their "science" and were soon debunked. If you can show that anti-AGW scientists misuse their science for ID then I have no problem to screw them.

As I wrote in another posting: ID-believer see AGW as a competition in a belief-system and as a competition to rule the world.

I should have kept out of this discussion....

635 Pythagoras  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:04:32pm

re: #634 zuckerlilly

Charles,

with due respect, but when the right-wing extremists in Europe occupy the European immigration problems have I to deny those problems because I want nothing have to do with them? Should I close my eyes?

No, Charles, I couldn't care less what they say and I will fight for reasonable solutions and better integration. Otherwise I would surrender to this right wing mob.

And please, Charles, name some of the many ID believers of the anti-AGW and discuss their science not their private belief. If their science is wrong, if their data are wrong then fight them. But not for their private belief. Behe et.al. misused their "science" and were soon debunked. If you can show that anti-AGW scientists misuse their science for ID then I have no problem to screw them.

As I wrote in another posting: ID-believer see AGW as a competition in a belief-system and as a competition to rule the world.

I should have kept out of this discussion....

Let me jump in to return the favor of Charles educating me on this point. The AGW - ID analogy is simply the worst possible choice. Some of the MOST prominent anti-AGW scientists are creationists (e.g. Monckton & Roy Spencer). Therefore, pick another analogy -- this one backfires.

They're tactics qualify them as Macarthyites. Call them Kool-Ade drinkers. Call them Nazis. But don't call them creationists.

636 californiabrowser  Thu, May 14, 2009 7:53:24pm

Charles

If you wish to lower your belief in the accuracy of information that comes from
people who are creationists (this may mean different things to different people), then, logically, in view of their failings, for example, in still supporting the hockey stick, you should take anything at realclimate with a large amount of skepticism as well. Linking to them is a reasonable as, say, linking to Monckton if he is right on something. A consistent standard is important.

As has been written by many in this thread, the realclimate bloggers support the hockey stick after it was, for all practical purposes debunked by McIntyre and McKitrick (see [Link: www.climateaudit.org...] ). On that link you can find usefully organized links to relevant documents beyond their papers.
The NRC report, for example, ([Link: books.nap.edu...] and the Wegman report ([Link: energycommerce.house.gov...] ).

The realclimate/hockey stick guys resort to name calling rather than admit there mistakes. Given the importance of the data and analysis, the behavior of this scientific community is pretty strange. If I were to calculate the end of the world as we know it, I would put out each and every detail, question each assumption and, in fact, really hope that I was wrong. Instead, you get believe my codes and spend trillions of dollars. If its only in the EU/US, then it wont matter, but if energy costs are inflated world wide you are condemning many people to poverty and misery. They also stand by Gore's movie, which had quite a few errors. The fact the Monckton does something dumb is not surprising---he is, after all, not a scientist; the RC guys are scientists, and must be held to a higher standard. They sadly don't hold up. This is in my view much worse that Monckton's actions. Finally, here is a link to testimony by a very prominent
physicist (Princeton Prof. W. Happer, fired by Gore at DOE in 93 for refusing to politicize DOE science research): [Link: www.capmag.com...]

637 JackLacton  Thu, May 14, 2009 8:43:43pm

Using the scientific fraudsters at RealClimate to debunk Monckton is a bit rich...

638 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 9:34:56pm

re: #635 Pythagoras

Let me jump in to return the favor of Charles educating me on this point. The AGW - ID analogy is simply the worst possible choice. Some of the MOST prominent anti-AGW scientists are creationists (e.g. Monckton & Roy Spencer). Therefore, pick another analogy -- this one backfires.

They're tactics qualify them as Macarthyites. Call them Kool-Ade drinkers. Call them Nazis. But don't call them creationists.

I'm should probably shut up at this point, but the common thread between the ID and AGW types is that they both are attempting to use the power of government and the authority of science to push an agenda.

The difference is that in the ID case, there is only pure religion being touted as science, and the agenda is to force religion down people's throats. With AGW, there are faulty arguments and unvalidated computer models being put forth as "proof". If you want to be kind, you can at least call it "bad science". The connection being made is a result of when the physical reality doesn't mesh with the models, but the proponents insist on sticking with them anyway. Naturally, the word "faith" (believing the stuff despite the physical evidence) starts popping up. The commonality of behaviors doesn't help either (note the demonization and suppression of heretics, the issuance of indulgences - "carbon credits", etc) The agenda for AGW is pretty transparent - radical environmentalism (humans as parasites upon the earth) and world socialism (world government must control the energy required for civilization - and, therefore, civilization itself - to save the world!). Notice how the agenda remains, even when some AGW believers point out that the solutions being proposed are far more costly than the problem they're trying to fix.

Nobody's saying that there's any significant overlap between the ID and AGW crowds (although I do remember seeing Pat Robertson on one of those left w/ right commercials they used to have - I think he was paired with Al Sharpton).

Perhaps this guy's analogy would be more palatable: [Link: www.capmag.com...] He gives an excellent common sense treatment of the whole AGW issue, but likens the alarmists to the Temperence Movement. A huge mob of people determined to force an all-important (at least according to them) virtue on their neighbors "for their own good", with the resulting unintended consequences being so bad it had to be repealed. (Personally, I would say that the "virtue" of the AGW crowd is a false one, of course.)

As to the presence of ID-ers on the anti-AGW side, the situation is EXACTLY the same as was described in that awesome article Charles posted back on May 5th: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
In short, and to paraphrase, they're on the right side on this very important issue (and others), and it's great to have support on those, but we really just need them to STFU on the crazy anachronistic religious crap - cause it's embarrassing and discrediting us.

639 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 9:47:35pm

A layman-friendly (and interesting) treatment of the "hockey stick" issue by McIntyre, himself, is posted at [Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

The graphs on slide 10 are particularly interesting. They show how only two of the time series (out of about two dozen) have a "hockey stick" character, yet the final combination of these series magically came out with the "stick". I guess bad data can be a b****.

Anyway, just FYI, if anybody's still out there.

640 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 9:54:02pm

re: #636 californiabrowser

An excellent post, but I'm miffed (at myself) that you linked to Happer shortly before I did, and that I didn't notice. "My bad."

641 Pythagoras  Thu, May 14, 2009 10:56:04pm

re: #638 Optimizer

Yes. Yes! It was Pat Robertson & Al Sharpton together, harping about how we all have to work together to stop global warming.

By golly that proves something, doesn't it?

642 Optimizer  Thu, May 14, 2009 11:40:51pm

re: #641 Pythagoras

Yes. Yes! It was Pat Robertson & Al Sharpton together, harping about how we all have to work together to stop global warming.

By golly that proves something, doesn't it?

I pointed this out to my mother, who is a Religious Right kook, and a big fan of Pat Robertson (sends him big bucks, even!). You know what she said? "Oh, yes, he did that commercial. But he doesn't really believe in that stuff. He just did the commercial for the money."

That just left me going, "Huh!?! Wha!?!" I mean, what can you really say to that?

But if anybody can make sense out of that commercial, and show that it "proves something" you got one on me! I just figured Robertson was pandering to how he thought the prevailing public sentiment was going.

643 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 4:35:36am

re: #636 californiabrowser

From your capmag-link:

But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect?

In German this would be called "Storchenforschung" ;-) - e.g. there is a village where every year babies are born there and every year the storks arrive from the south to breed their eggs. Over the years fewer and fewer babies are born and fewer and fewer storks arrive at the village. Conclusion: the storks deliver the babies ;-) - fits perfect for Al Gores understanding of science.

Gore launches $300 million campaign (out of who's pockets?)

Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton just filmed an ad for the We Campaign, sitting on a couch on the beach. In the ad, now being produced, they say that while they may not agree on many things, they do agree that they have to work to save the planet.

A future couple in the “strange bedfellows” or "unlikely alliances” spots will be recorded soon: Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative

(...)

Among signers of the statement, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, are the presidents of 39 evangelical colleges, leaders of aid groups and churches, like the Salvation Army, and pastors of megachurches, including Rick Warren, author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life."

------

So Pat Robertson is promoting AGW AND ID

Rick Warren is promoting AGW AND ID

Duane Litfin is promoting AGW AND ID

(etc.)

So much for democrats and science.

-----

In society at large the judgement of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgement of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago. Science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight. Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer.

(Paul Feyerabend, How to defend Society against Science, 1975)

644 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 4:49:06am

Newsweek equates global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers and accuses reputable scientists of being paid to create confusion in the face of consensus. Galileo is once again on trial.

Even the supporters of global warming hype found the title of Newsweek's Aug. 13 attack on skeptics, "The Truth About Denial," offensive. The use of the word "denier" is deliberate, an attempt to paint as either crazy or corrupt what Al Gore has proclaimed as Truth. Reputable scientists have been accused by a major news magazine of being paid to lie.

Newsweek says "the denial machine is running at full throttle" and is a "well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists."

How well-funded? Newsweek cites Exxon Mobil "giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)" to produce what eminent climatologist Sen. Jay Rockefeller is quoted as calling "very questionable data" on climate change.

No mention is made of the $3 billion contribution to the global warming crusade by Virgin Air's gazillionaire owner Richard Branson alone. Donations such as these are the reason the 2004 budgets of the Sierra Club Foundation and the National Resources Defense Council were $91 million and $57 million respectively.

Newsweek portrays James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as untainted by corporate bribery.

Hansen was once profiled on CBS' "60 Minutes" as the "world's leading researcher on global warming." Not mentioned by Newsweek was that Hansen had acted as a consultant to Al Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, that he had endorsed John Kerry for president, and had received a $250,000 grant from the foundation headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Newsweek reporter and editorial, uh, article co-author Eve Conant was provided, during her interview with Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., documentation of the overwhelming funding advantage enjoyed by those who promote fear of climate change. Newsweek chose to ignore it.

In a Sept. 25, 2006, Senate floor speech, Inhofe noted: "The fact remains that political campaign funding by environmental groups to promote climate and environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the fossil fuel industry by a 3-to-1 ratio."

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter testified before Inhofe's Environment and Public Works Committee: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."

Nor did Newsweek put a dollar value on the 75 hours of free airtime that corporate cousin NBC gave Al Gore on its various stations, starting with NBC and including CNBC, Bravo, the Sundance Channel, Universal HD and Telemundo. We bet it is more than Exxon's $19 million or CEI's meager $3.6 million annual budget.

It is in fact the high priests of global warming that have had a, uh, chilling effect on free scientific inquiry. Richard Lindzen, a professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T., says, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges."

(...)

645 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:19:28am

re: #642 Optimizer

I pointed this out to my mother, who is a Religious Right kook, and a big fan of Pat Robertson (sends him big bucks, even!). You know what she said? "Oh, yes, he did that commercial. But he doesn't really believe in that stuff. He just did the commercial for the money."

That just left me going, "Huh!?! Wha!?!" I mean, what can you really say to that?

But if anybody can make sense out of that commercial, and show that it "proves something" you got one on me! I just figured Robertson was pandering to how he thought the prevailing public sentiment was going.

It proves the unimportant point that the religious right has some big supporters of AGW. I'm REALLY sorry about your mum -- I doubt they were paid to do the spot. If she really thinks he was lying for money, that's amazing. He's definitely not poor enough for her explanation to make any sense. Does she think they would pay big bucks for such silly spokesmen? Robertson may be clueless (ESPECIALLY about anything having to do with science) but he, like many AGW believers, is a true believer.

Full disclosure -- I am a religious conservative. I just know science and don't fall for some things lots of folks do. That's why I jumped in on the church-AGW thing. I remember throwing a fit when I found out my church (PCA) had fallen (pun intended) for this junk. I couldn't find any links about it now so they may have gotten a clue.

646 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:19:12am

Anti-AGW spokespeople who are creationists include:

Michele Bachman
James Inhofe
Roy Spencer
The Discovery Institute
Answers in Genesis
The Institute for Creation Research
Ben Stein
Phyllis Schlafly
Andrew Schlafly

... and nearly every other major creationist organization. The fact that some politically active evangelists are hitching a ride on the AGW bandwagon means little -- they take other positions that are politically expedient too.

That's a quick list without spending much time at it. I could easily find dozens, if not hundreds, more well-known anti-AGW people and groups who are also creationists.

If you look into what the outright creationists believe, they are almost always also anti-AGW. And a lot of these same people also deny that HIV causes AIDS.

647 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 11:54:56am

re: #646 Charles

Anti-AGW spokespeople who are creationists include:

Michele Bachman
James Inhofe
Roy Spencer
The Discovery Institute
Answers in Genesis
The Institute for Creation Research
Ben Stein
Phyllis Schlafly
Andrew Schlafly

... and nearly every other major creationist organization. The fact that some politically active evangelists are hitching a ride on the AGW bandwagon means little -- they take other positions that are politically expedient too.

That's a quick list without spending much time at it. I could easily find dozens, if not hundreds, more well-known anti-AGW people and groups who are also creationists.

If you look into what the outright creationists believe, they are almost always also anti-AGW. And a lot of these same people also deny that HIV causes AIDS.

So, I think we agree. Likening the AGW scientists to creationists is ridiculous -- since so many creationists are anti-AGW. People should use another analogy.

But do we not also agree that the creationists jumping on the anti-AGW bandwagon doesn't take away from the legitimate scientists who disagree that we should act to limit CO2? This is regardless of whether they:

1) Think increased CO2 would be a minor or insignificant contributor to climate change,

2) Think our ability to do anything about it is limited and not worth the cost,

3) Think warmer is better and the increased plant production from increased CO2 would be a big plus,

4) Desperately hope Al Gore is right and thus we can avoid an overdue Ice Age,

5) Think solar cycles are the key to climate change,

6) Think ocean circulation is the key to climate change,

7) Think climate science is in its infancy and can't believe anyone could be cock-sure about predicting the future when they can't even explain what caused the past Ice Ages,

and/or any other variation.

648 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 12:29:03pm

re: #647 Pythagoras

So, I think we agree. Likening the AGW scientists to creationists is ridiculous -- since so many creationists are anti-AGW. People should use another analogy.

But do we not also agree that the creationists jumping on the anti-AGW bandwagon doesn't take away from the legitimate scientists who disagree that we should act to limit CO2?

No, I don't think we agree. The simple bottom line is that among scientists who are trained in climatology and environmental issues, there is a very broad consensus that global warming is occurring, and that human beings are responsible for it to a very large degree. The anti-AGW scientists who are actually qualified in the field are a very small minority.

Some people seem to think that this is because there's a conspiracy of evil liars who want America to fail. Or maybe George Soros is paying them. Or maybe they're all just ... wrong, somehow.

But science doesn't work like that. If a consensus emerges, as it has with climate change, it's because hundreds -- if not thousands -- of scientists all over the world have studied the research, done their own research, and found corroboration and correlations that lead them to these conclusions.

A scientist who could definitively prove that, for example, CO2 does not affect the warmth of the earth's atmosphere nearly as much as is claimed would be famous. That's what Monckton claimed -- until it was discovered that he lied about his research being peer reviewed, and made huge errors in his calculations.

Scientists have a powerful motivation to debunk other scientists' theories -- that's how careers are made. The fact that so many of the debunkers turn out to be frauds like Monckton or Inhofe, I find very concerning.

As I've written several times now, I'm still skeptical of the climate change claims. But it really doesn't help that so many on the anti-AGW side are frauds, kooks, or in the pocket of the energy industry. Given a choice between that crowd and the consensus of most of the world's scientists, I'm leaning toward the scientists.

649 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 1:00:38pm

re: #648 Charles

I guess I missed the point of #595, yet again.

Charles, I'm a big fan of yours but I know something about this and I disagree with you.

My grad school was in Electrophysics and, while that's not climate science, I know the fundamentals of how it all works and can read the papers. I've read more than a few of them. I'm more qualified on this than many, if not most, of the signatories of the IPCC report.

The blunt truth is that ten years ago an unbiased scientist would likely come down on the AGW side but now an unbiased scientist would not. What changed?

1) The temporal resolution of the ice cores has improved and we now know that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. Now it may be true that the CO2 helped amplify temperature swings but it didn't start them. What did?

2) The relationship between solar cycles and climate is starting to be understood. This is still being worked out but there are clear correlations in the past.

3) The "hot spot" in the troposphere that AGW predicts cannot be found.

Lastly, the "consensus" is suffering some serious shrinkage. Just Google "Why I Recanted" to find this article (the original, published in The Financial Post, is no longer available).

[Link: climaterealists.com...]

Another scientist to recently "come out" on this is Harrison Schmidt, a PHD geologist who has the distinction of having walked on the moon.

[Link: www.eurekalert.org...]

But Al Gore has just recently likened "denialists" to people who think NASA faked the missions to the moon.

Youtube Video

Does he have great timing or what?

650 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 1:05:37pm

re: #646 Charles

Well, Charles, as a non-American I didn't know Phyllis Schlafly so I did a little google search. You are right she promotes ID as well as she is an anti-AGW.

Therefore I promise: I will side with the AGW-crowd (against all my scientific understanding of AGW) and their hero Al Gore (although I believe that he is one of the greatest impostor of the 20.th/21st century and an illiterate in science), I will not shed a tear when he fills his pockets with my money, I will put aside every science which opposes AGW and thus every shred of ethics in science and oppose any one any where in every case who I can identify as an intelligent designer. I'm no longer an AGW-denier (who Hansen compares in his letters to the European governments with the Nazi criminals in Auschwitz) and promise to become a true believer of Scientology, sorry, of the AGW-cult.

And because the Phyllis-dragon is also against the UN I will no longer criticize the organization, I promise. It doesn't matter that I'm now in bed with Ahmadinejad, the "Palestinians", Castro, the Arabs, China, the so called "Human Rights Council" etc., it doesn't matter that I'm now in line with an organization which is corrupt to the core, I have opposed the Phyllis-dragon so I'm a hero! That counts!

This makes my day! I have opposed the Phyllis-dragon and I'm now in good company with 86 organizations of intelligent designers and have thrown away every understanding of proper science. All problems solved.

651 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 1:13:36pm

re: #649 Pythagoras

The claim that the troposphere is not warming comes from ... wait for it ... creationist Roy Spencer.

And it has been shown to be false.

Key claim against global warming evaporates.

But in another Science paper published today, Carl Mears and Rank Wentz, scientists at the California-based Remote Sensing Systems, examined the same data and identified an error in Spencer's analysis technique.

After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.

Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories.

"When people come up with extraordinary claims -- like the troposphere is cooling -- then you demand extraordinary proof," Santer said. "What's happening now is that people around the world are subjecting these data sets to the scrutiny they need."

652 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 1:22:10pm

re: #651 Charles

The claim that the troposphere is not warming comes from ... wait for it ... creationist Roy Spencer.

And it has been shown to be false.

Key claim against global warming evaporates.

Maybe, I should have made this clearer -- I'm talking about the hot spot in the upper troposphere. Follow the first link in #649.

653 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 1:30:04pm

re: #652 Pythagoras

Maybe, I should have made this clearer -- I'm talking about the hot spot in the upper troposphere. Follow the first link in #649.

David Evans doesn't even know what the hot spot is.

654 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 1:31:14pm

And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here. Every time I look into one of these claims, I discover that somebody's either mistaken or not telling the full truth.

655 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 2:12:30pm

I am drawing your attention to a significant change in GISS GHG temperature trend projections published by Jim Hansen's team last week, and which appears to have gone largely unnoticed other than by Lucia Liljegren on her site "The Blackboard"

At the very end of the GISS update, under para #4 in the next to last paragraph, Hansen & Co state that: "From climate models and empirical analyses this GHG forcing translates into a mean warming rate of 0.15C per decade". Given that Jim Hansen is one of the leading and vocal proponents of the AGW/ACC hypothesis, that the GISS temperature data series has yet again come close scrutiny recently [Lubos Motl, et. al] and that GISS temperature data is increasingly at odds with satellite data [ref: today's posting on that subject at [Link: www.wattsupwiththat.com...] ] this revision is singularly noteworthy: the revised GISS GHG driven temperature trend is a whopping 25% lower than the IPCC's [95% certain] "gold standard" of 0.20C per decade.

(Henry N. Geraedts, PhD)

656 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 2:50:46pm

re: #654 Charles

And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here. Every time I look into one of these claims, I discover that somebody's either mistaken or not telling the full truth.

As an Electrophysics major, I could go on for hours about why I agree with Evans, but let's not. Let's agree to disagree for now.

I feel the same way about everything Al Gore said as you do about the claims of the skeptics (and the British courts agree with me) but this will get us nowhere. However, there's one piece of data that everyone agrees on and I think it will ultimate decide who wins -- the polar sea ice. The measurements are not in dispute; here are two excellent, pure data, sources.

[Link: nsidc.org...]

[Link: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu...]

Either the North Pole will be ice free in 5 years (as Gore has predicted) or it won't. If it's down but not gone, then Gore is still right. If it rebounds significantly, then he's wrong. This will take time -- the ice's response to climate change is, pardon the pun, glacial.

657 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 3:13:53pm

"New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol"
particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance."

658 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 3:21:46pm

The research aircraft "Polar 5" today concluded its Arctic expedition in Canada. During the flight, researchers measured the current ice thickness at the North Pole and in areas that have never before been surveyed. The result: The sea-ice in the surveyed areas is apparently thicker than scientists had suspected.

Normally, newly formed ice measures some two meters in thickness after two years. "Here, we measured ice thickness up to four meters," said a spokesperson for Bremerhaven's Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. At present, this result contradicts the warming of the sea water, according to the scientists.

Apart from measuring ice thickness, the composition of arctic air was also investigated. With the help of a laser, the researchers studied the level of pollution of the atmosphere by emissions from industrialized countries. In the next few weeks the results will be evaluated. Some 20 scientists from the U.S., Canada, Italy and Germany took part in the expedition.

659 zuckerlilly  Fri, May 15, 2009 3:36:42pm

IS ANTARCTIC WARMING REAL OR "MANN"-MADE?

THE recent report in the journal Nature of an unexpected Antarctic
warming trend has created a certain amount of skepticism - even among
supporters of AGW. [1]

But in an AP news story, two of its authors (one is 'hockey-stick'
inventor Michael Mann from the Real Climate blog) argue that this
refutes the skeptics and is "consistent with" greenhouse warming. Of
course, as Roger Pielke, Jr, points out, not long ago we learned from
Real Climate that a cooling Antarctica was 'consistent with' greenhouse
warming and thus the skeptics were wrong: "So a warming Antarctica and a cooling Antarctica are both 'consistent with' model projections of
global warming. Our foray into the tortured logic of 'consistent with'
in climate science raises the perennial question, what observations of
the climate system would be inconsistent with the model predictions?"
The results are based on very few isolated data from weather stations,
plus data from research satellites. And here is the rub: these are not
data from microwave sounding units (MSU), such as are regularly
published by Christy and Spencer, but data from infrared sensors that
are supposed to measure the temperature of the surface (rather than of
the overlaying atmosphere, as weather stations do).

But the IR emission depends not only on temperature of the surface, but also on surface emissivity - and is further modified by absorption of
clouds and haze.

These are all difficult points. Emissivity of snow depends on its
porosity and size of snow crystals. Blowing snow likely has a different
emissivity than snow that has been tamped down; so surface winds could
have a strong influence. The emissivity of ice is again different and
will depend on whether there is a thin melt layer of water on top of the
ice, temporarily produced by solar radiation. Finally, we have
temperature inversions that can trap haze which is essentially
undetectable by optical methods from satellites.

The proof of the pudding, of course, is the MSU data, which show a
continuous cooling trend, are little affected by surface conditions and
are unaffected by haze and clouds. They are therefore more reliable.
Bottom line: As it looks to me right now, the Antarctic Continent is
cooling not warming.

660 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 5:21:30pm

re: #648 Charles

Charles, science does not work by consensus. Never has, never will. At one time the "consensus" was that Louis Pasteur was a dangerous crackpot and his germ theory of disease was ridiculous. At one time the "consensus" was that Ignasz Semmelweis was crazy for suggesting that doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies. There are many more examples of this kind- recently there was a "consensus" that histone deacetylase inhibitors were going to be excellent cancer drugs- they've been duds. Data rules, physical observations trump computer models, consensus doesn't mean anything. If you're arguing consensus instead of data, it means the data are not on your side. You need to keep in mind the grant-seeking aspect of contemporary academic research. I don't know the figures offhand, but I can guarantee you there is a hell of a lot more grant money for climate research now than there was 20 years ago. Climate researchers are acting out of self-interest when they try to keep the gravy train going.

661 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 5:41:14pm

re: #660 hopperandadropper

Charles, science does not work by consensus. Never has, never will.

Please. At least try to follow the points I'm making, instead of the points I am NOT making.

I did NOT say that science works by consensus, and I am NOT "arguing consensus."

I said that a consensus had been reached by most scientists who study climate change -- based on the RESEARCH and the DATA. I repeat:

If a consensus emerges, as it has with climate change, it's because hundreds -- if not thousands -- of scientists all over the world have studied the research, done their own research, and found corroboration and correlations that lead them to these conclusions.

662 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 6:08:08pm

Charles, you're missing my point. The majority, even a vast majority, can be wrong. The question is not whether the earth has recently gone through a minor warming phase, because the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all the time and always has done so. The question is, is what we are observing now outside the known limits of variation? The answer to that is clearly No. So then, why is it necessary to invoke human causation and whose interests are served by doing so? I believe the answers are self-evident. When you look closely at the alleged "results" that are cited as supporting the "consensus", a high percentage of those "results" are the output of computer models. Output from models does not constitute data. Physical observations constitute data, and a high percentage of people who concentrate on the physical observations (geologists and geophysicists, in particular) are not on the AGW bandwagon.

663 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 6:13:19pm

re: #662 hopperandadropper

Charles, you're missing my point.

No, actually -- you missed MY point. By a mile.

The majority, even a vast majority, can be wrong.

Sure, that's possible. But it's a little ridiculous to argue that every single climate scientist on the AGW side is ... wrong. If you believe that, you have a huge burden of proof to provide, because these people are not stupid.

Physical observations constitute data, and a high percentage of people who concentrate on the physical observations (geologists and geophysicists, in particular) are not on the AGW bandwagon.

A "high percentage?" Can you quantify that percentage for me? Because from what I see, and I've been reading a lot about this, scientists qualified to comment about climate change who DON'T think humans are causing atmospheric warming are a tiny minority.

664 Optimizer  Fri, May 15, 2009 7:45:36pm

re: #646 Charles

Anti-AGW spokespeople who are creationists include:

Michele Bachman
James Inhofe
Roy Spencer
The Discovery Institute
Answers in Genesis
The Institute for Creation Research
Ben Stein
Phyllis Schlafly
Andrew Schlafly

... and nearly every other major creationist organization. The fact that some politically active evangelists are hitching a ride on the AGW bandwagon means little -- they take other positions that are politically expedient too.

That's a quick list without spending much time at it. I could easily find dozens, if not hundreds, more well-known anti-AGW people and groups who are also creationists.

If you look into what the outright creationists believe, they are almost always also anti-AGW. And a lot of these same people also deny that HIV causes AIDS.

It should be noted that if you removed every syllable of what every single of of these people have to say from the anti-AGW argument, than said argument would not be missing anything. What they have to say is superfluous, and all their ID connections contribute is embarrassment.

The correlation between ID-er and anti-AGWs is obviously that conservatives are more susceptible to anti-AGW ideas (which oppose Big Government solutions) than liberals. Conversely, liberals (who embrace Big Government solutions like a lion to a big juicy steak) tend to favor AGW. IIRC, independents are pretty split on this these days - which I think represents a loss for the AGW crowd.

The anti-AGW people of merit aren't even associated with these ID-ers. They're just on the same side on one issue. My mother voted against Obama too, but that doesn't mean you should assume that I want Creationism taught in school. This is guilt by association, when they're not even associated.

Are you saying Prof. Lintzen is an ID-er? Happer?

665 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 7:51:35pm

Okay, Charles, start with the point I raised previously: is the current state of affairs, or the trend that's been observed over the past 30 or so years, outside the known limits of normal variation? If you say it is, then please provide the physical data that supports the argument. If you can't provide that evidence (the results of computer models don't count, because they do not constitute data) then there is no need to invoke human causation.

You need to keep in mind that it's the AGW side of the argument that wants to massively rearrange the economies of the US and other countries. The burden of proof is on them. Since you like to review the prior positions of people who argue for and against scientific questions (e.g., Roy Spencer and ID), it's probably worth considering that the pro-AGW crowd includes (and is, in many respects, led) by people who were saying twenty years ago that biotechnology was horribly dangerous and are continuing to argue that genetically engineered foods are dangerous. There is no concrete evidence to support this view, but hey, it's the precautionary principle, right?

666 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 7:56:58pm

By the way, Charles, if you want to use the argument that being wrong about one thing (e.g, ID, about which I am in complete agreement with you) makes you wrong about everything else, ask yourself this.

Do most creationists also believe strongly in supporting the US Constitution? In particular, are they likely to support the Second Amendment? Does that invalidate the Constitution, or the Second Amendment?

667 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 7:58:09pm

re: #666 hopperandadropper

Do most creationists also believe strongly in supporting the US Constitution?

No- they're actively trying to undermine it by having government schools teach religion in science classes.

668 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:01:17pm

re: #667 Sharmuta

All right, that's a fair point when it comes to the "establishment of religion" clause. So, let's limit the question to the Second Amendment. Any thoughts on that?

669 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:06:00pm

re: #668 hopperandadropper

I already answered you. No- they don't support the Constitution. It's not a pick and choose document. They can delude themselves if they want to by thinking they support the Constitution because they're pro-gun, but it's not true. They're already willing to undermine other rights.

And this is all without even mentioning the creationist lobby groups who actually do want to replace the Constitution.

670 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:12:00pm

re: #651 Charles

Okay, Charles, once again if you read the article carefully (in the link you provided) you see that the authors "corrected" the data to remove Spencer's alleged "error". In other words, they jiggered the model to remove something that disagrees with their contentions. As far as I can tell from this article, the physical data (that is, the actual data from the radiosondes) tend to disagree with the AGW hypothesis. It's only when they are "properly corrected" that this problem goes away.

If that's the kind of argument you want to make, fine, but it's going to take more than one paper to prove the point.

671 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:14:38pm

re: #669 Sharmuta

I think you're missing the point. If you asked these people whether they believe in the Constitution, what would they tell you? You can choose to think they don't actually believe in the Constitution because you disagree with them about some aspect of it, but that's beside the point.

672 Optimizer  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:15:05pm

re: #648 Charles

... The anti-AGW scientists who are actually qualified in the field are a very small minority.

Ignoring the No True Scotsman character of this part, I would point out that a retired Canadian statistician (who you would probably dismiss as "unqualified") made it pretty clear how valuable these "qualifications" have been shown to be. You really ought to check out his presentation (see #649).

Scientists have a powerful motivation to debunk other scientists' theories -- that's how careers are made. ...

Actually, that's how they lose their grant money, get thrown out of their profession, and become "unqualified", as you put it. Unlike most scientific theories that might be explored, there's billions of dollars (in scientific reasearch alone) to be had by keeping the AGW theory alive. Nobody's going to throw billions at something that isn't saving the planet, after all. And that's without even considering the political inclinations of most scientists (oddly, people employed by Big govt tend to be in favor of Big govt).

Galileo stuck by his guns the best he could, but I'm not sure most modern scientists would be willing to go through the modern-day equivalent of what he went through. Martrydom is mostly a jihadi thing these days.

...Given a choice between that crowd and the consensus of most of the world's scientists, I'm leaning toward the scientists.

I'd kind of like to see your evidence of this "consensus". Seems like I've seen one or two of those claims de-bunked. For example, how they count the members of the IPCC, and declare that they're all scientists, and on board with the reports made, when even cursory investigation into the report-making process shows that no one should expect that it is representative of a cross-section of the group. Is there real evidence of this these days?

673 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:16:18pm

re: #663 Charles

A "high percentage?" Can you quantify that percentage for me? Because from what I see, and I've been reading a lot about this, scientists qualified to comment about climate change who DON'T think humans are causing atmospheric warming are a tiny minority.

Yeah but the top three are all skeptics.

Reid Bryson, who died just last year, is the most referenced climatologist ever. His papers are cited more than anyone else's. He was a hard skeptic -- once saying, “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
[Link: ccr.aos.wisc.edu...]
[Link: www.conservapedia.com...]
[Link: global-warming.accuweather.com...]

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. He's a soft skeptic, saying things much less harshly that Bryson.
[Link: www-eaps.mit.edu...]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

George Taylor was, until he resigned recently, the Oregon State Climatologist and the President of the Association of State Climatologists. He's another soft skeptic. In a letter to the LA Times he noted that a MAJORITY of the State Climatologists view natural variation, not man-made emissions as the predominant cause of long-term climate change.
[Link: www.junkscience.com...]

I doubt the AGW folks can offer up a single resume in the same league with these three and adding in the majority of the state climatologists tips the scales quite a bit at the top of the food chain.

There's no consensus.

674 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:24:42pm

re: #671 hopperandadropper

I think you're missing the point. If you asked these people whether they believe in the Constitution, what would they tell you? You can choose to think they don't actually believe in the Constitution because you disagree with them about some aspect of it, but that's beside the point.

Just because they believe they support the Constitution doesn't make it true.

Helloooooo.

675 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:37:05pm

re: #674 Sharmuta

Well, if you're going to insist that anyone who disagrees with you is, by default, a non-supporter of the Constitution then any further discussion is pointless.

The principal question remains: where is the physical evidence that shows the current state of affairs (or the trend over the last 30 years, say) is outside the known limits of natural variability?

Bueller? Bueller?

676 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:38:24pm

re: #675 hopperandadropper

No- you don't get it. It's not that they agree or disagree with me on evolution, it's that they actually don't support the Constitution if they're willing to undermine it!

677 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:54:36pm

re: #676 Sharmuta

Well, that's a subjective judgment. Don't get me wrong, I have no patience with creationists, but the point I'm trying to make is that being wrong about one thing doesn't make you wrong about everything.

Linus Pauling won two Nobel Prizes for chemistry. He was a relentless advocate of the health benefits of taking large doses of vitamin C. A study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences strongly suggests that taking large doses of vitamin C might negate some of the benefical effects of exercise.

Michael Ristow, Kim Zarse, Andreas Oberbach, Nora Klöting, Marc Birringer, Michael Kiehntopf, Michael Stumvoll, C. Ronald Kahn, and Matthias Blüher
Antioxidants prevent health-promoting effects of physical exercise in humans
PNAS published online before print May 11, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0903485106

So, if true, does that negate Pauling's two Nobel prizes?

678 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 8:57:51pm

re: #677 hopperandadropper

Then you selected a poor analogy by asking if Creationists support the Constitution. That's not my fault.

679 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:04:59pm

re: #678 Sharmuta

Fine, but not answering the underlying question IS your fault.

680 Optimizer  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:06:21pm

re: #661 Charles

...I did NOT say that science works by consensus, and I am NOT "arguing consensus."

I said that a consensus had been reached by most scientists who study climate change -- based on the RESEARCH and the DATA. ...

Personally, I can see why there would be confusion. Let me see if I catch the distinction. You don't claim that scientific consensus makes for scientific legitimacy; however you claim there IS a consensus, and that you are inclined to go with it. So you're not saying that these guys are definitely right, just that you think they're more likely to be right - because of the credibility you have become convinced that they have. You believe them because of this alleged consensus, but presume that they have better reasons than their consensus for their conclusions. I hope this clears things up (if I'm right, of course - if I'm not, well I'm more confused on the point then ever!)

More importantly, your claim that this science is based on "RESEARCH and DATA", and this is a key point. The only real "bottom line" data that's any damn good is the satellite measurement of global temperatures. The "research" consists of further developing climate models (using various non-bottom line data, I assume).

A person would have to be living in a cave not to know that the climate models have predicted that rising CO2 (and it IS rising) should cause significantly rising temperatures, and that the models blame this same CO2 for the rise of temperatures in the 80s and 90s.

But if you look at the DATA, it's pretty obvious that temperatures have not steadily risen in the last ten years. Instead they have leveled off, and started to drop. So AGW is not "based on data" - it stands in defiance of data.

You don't have to be a hot-shot scientist with a PhD from some hot-shot university to understand that when a scientist predicts something with his model, and the real world data doesn't cooperate, that you shouldn't pay attention to that scientist's subsequent predictions (or his excuses). That it doesn't matter what "qualifications" the guy has, or how many other hot-shots agree with him. Especially when there'$ an obviou$ $ource of corruption. Most layman understand the story of Chicken Little.

681 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:09:54pm

re: #679 hopperandadropper

You gave a specific question about creationists that I answered.

682 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:15:49pm

re: #681 Sharmuta

And I asked a more general question which you refuse to answer.

683 Sharmuta  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:16:44pm

re: #682 hopperandadropper

I'm not in the mood to chase goalposts.

684 Optimizer  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:19:03pm

re: #673 Pythagoras

MIT? Is that all you got? ;)

Isn't Taylor one of those guys whose career was "made" by debunking other scientists' theories ('cause he was powerfully motivated)? ... No, wait! Oops! - He was forced to resign for voicing his professional opinion about AGW.

Anybody else in Oregon state govt want to question AGW? ... No? ... Well, that settles it! Consensus!

685 hopperandadropper  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:25:58pm

re: #683 Sharmuta

Right, that's what I thought. Ignore the fundamental question, then whine about moving the goalposts.

686 Optimizer  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:37:53pm

re: #683 Sharmuta

I'm not in the mood to chase goalposts.

Hey, the guy admitted to coming up with a poor example, so you're going to ignore the point and scurry away? For shame.

You know, I thought I addressed this point adequately more than once. This was the shortest version:
re: #572 Optimizer

You really ought to give up on this ad hominem, guilt by association (that doesn't really even exist) stuff. Logical fallacies? I know you know better.

Regardless, it's pointless to keep going round and round on this. If anybody wants to cling to this "anti-AGW" people are ID sympathizers and anti-science stuff, ducking the real debate with that red herring, that is your priviledge.

687 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:38:19pm

It's pretty pathetic that all you guys can do is just deny that the vast majority of climate scientists do believe humans are a cause of global warming, and make mocking, silly remarks about "consensus" as if it were meaningless.

This kind of reaction does a lot to convince me that the anti-AGW side is not playing with a full deck. But by all means, keep ranting away.

688 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 15, 2009 9:39:11pm

I'll let you have the last word, folks, because it's clear that further argument on the subject is pointless.

689 Pythagoras  Fri, May 15, 2009 10:30:53pm

re: #687 Charles

It's pretty pathetic that all you guys can do is just deny that the vast majority of climate scientists do believe humans are a cause of global warming, and make mocking, silly remarks about "consensus" as if it were meaningless.

This kind of reaction does a lot to convince me that the anti-AGW side is not playing with a full deck. But by all means, keep ranting away.

Did you even Read #673?

690 Sharmuta  Sat, May 16, 2009 1:39:15am

re: #685 hopperandadropper

Right, that's what I thought. Ignore the fundamental question, then whine about moving the goalposts.

Look- you asked about creationists supporting the Constitution, then you moved the goalpost to just the second amendment. Then you changed it altogether to Vitamin C. And you want to whine to me about not chasing your goalposts. You're the one who did it multiple times.

691 Aye Pod  Sat, May 16, 2009 5:49:12am

re: #687 Charles

It's pretty pathetic that all you guys can do is just deny that the vast majority of climate scientists do believe humans are a cause of global warming, and make mocking, silly remarks about "consensus" as if it were meaningless.

This kind of reaction does a lot to convince me that the anti-AGW side is not playing with a full deck. But by all means, keep ranting away.

Also much in evidence among these 'sceptics' is an extreme disdain for 'modelling' (shun the models - SHUN THEM!) that is actually quite alien to scientists, who uncontroversially employ models in their work in many different fields, and, amazingly enough, actually understand their uses and limitations. But when it comes to climate science 'sceptics', we find suddenly that models come directly from the arse of beelzebub and the scientists using them are confusing them with 'facts' and so on.

The more sceptics reek of this kind of bullshit, the less inclined I am to take them seriously.

692 Aye Pod  Sat, May 16, 2009 6:13:34am

re: #673 Pythagoras

Who determines who the top three scientists in a field are? What are the criteria used to arrive at this? Who are the top ten climate scientists? The 'hot one hundred'?

You are linking to Conservapedia (ID is good science! Ben Stein was right!) and Junk Science to promote the claim that these people are the leaders in their field? If they were really such leaders in their field, surely you would be linking only to reputable science websites to make your point, not this kind of rubbish.

An observation- 'Conservapedia' describes Reid Bryson as the "father of scientific climatology". However, as far as I can tell, he is only regarded as such by AGW sceptics. Just try finding a page that bears that phrase that is not rabidly AGW-'sceptic'!

[Link: www.google.co.uk...]

Bullshitters and their memes eh?

693 JustAHouseWife  Sat, May 16, 2009 6:31:49am

re: #691 Jimmah

Yep, scientists use computer models all the time. And they FAIL all the time too. I can show you examples, but you could also find them yourself.
BTW why don't you explain to everyone how GCM's handle clouds?

Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. I could say that AGW believers don't understand the vast history of the Earth and its geologic record just as much as Creationists don't, but that would be rude. I could also explain how they don't understand that the farther you go back in time, the data gets more and more harder to read; and that you can't "look" at a tiny tiny small time scale in the past (like this 150 yr modern period you are arguing over); and say "something unusual in the climate is happening today"; that would be useless to explain to you unless understood the geologic record and how vast it is.

Here's a graph my husband referenced to in his own published thesis paper. (one of several graphs referenced) (He had to rule out climate change and sea level rise as a reason for the changes in the landscape of the coastal area he was researching.)

Graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations (thousands of parts per million) throughout geologic time: here

You are arguing over a time somewhere so small on that graph at "0" you can't even see it and claiming you know the climate is behaving un-naturally. (and arguing over fractions of 1 degree "warming" too)
150 years of data called "right now" is "0" data; pretty much, to make such assumptions. And only average scientists worry so much about "averages". Global average temperature isn't even a real number.
All this, IMHO of course.

694 hopperandadropper  Sat, May 16, 2009 7:51:10am

re: #690 Sharmuta

The basic question, as I made clear in my first post, is "does being wrong about one thing make you wrong about everything?"

I used several examples to illustrate the same basic point, since you didn't like the one relating to ID. That's not moving the goal posts, my friend.

Charles, I never said that there wasn't a high percentage of climate scientists who push the AGW idea. I just made the point, and backed it with examples, that a high percentage of scientists in a field can be wrong. That's just pointing out the truth, but if you find it "mocking" or "silly", that's your prerogative.

695 Charles Johnson  Sat, May 16, 2009 9:45:01am

re: #673 Pythagoras

Great. Links to Conservapedia and junkscience.com. Now THAT'S credibility.

Reid Bryson -- the main promoter of "global cooling," a prediction that turned out to be not even wrong. When people bash climatologists for previously promoting the coming of a new Ice Age, Reid Bryson is the one they're talking about.

Richard Lindzen interviewed in the National Post:

Q: On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A: I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

Oh yeah, he's a moderate, all right.

George Taylor was never the "Oregon State Climatologist," because the state has no such position.

And with that, I'm completely finished chasing after your links and citations. Again, I'm reminded of creationists who post quotes and links that invariably turn out to be false, distorted, or out of context.

696 Joetheplumber  Sat, May 16, 2009 10:07:51am

re: #691 Jimmah

Also much in evidence among these 'sceptics' is an extreme disdain for 'modelling' (shun the models - SHUN THEM!) that is actually quite alien to scientists, who uncontroversially employ models in their work in many different fields, and, amazingly enough, actually understand their uses and limitations. But when it comes to climate science 'sceptics', we find suddenly that models come directly from the arse of beelzebub and the scientists using them are confusing them with 'facts' and so on.

The more sceptics reek of this kind of bullshit, the less inclined I am to take them seriously.

As an engineer, who used computer simulations as part of my doctorate work, let me clearly point out that I don't share a disdain for computer modeling but I do have a disdain for the computer modeling used by the so-called 'climate experts'. Unfortunately the AGW people who use the computer models to predict catastrophic temp. increases, have never had to test their simulations with real world observations. Instead, the models they use are quite incomplete because the physics of atmospheric science is still very much in its infancy. We don't even have models to simulate the effect of water vapor and cloud cover (which are far more abundant greenhouse gases than CO2). All climate forecasting models are created by a pretty insular and incestuous climate science community that seems to compete to see who can come up with the most dire forecast. Certainly there are financial incentives to be as aggressive as possible in forecasting climate change, since funding dollars tend to get channeled to those who are the most dramatic. The global warming community spends a lot of time with ad hominem attacks on skeptics, usually accusing them of being in the pay of oil and power companies, but they all know that their own funding in turn would dry up rapidly if they were to show any bit of skepticism in their own work.

697 Joetheplumber  Sat, May 16, 2009 10:23:14am

Since Charles seemed to find a link between ID proponents and AGW skeptics; and since I consider myself as completely opposed to both the ID nonsense as well as the 'man-made global warming' hysteria nonsense here are some of my thoughts. First, I strongly believe that if anything, science has continually taught us that we are not the center of the Universe and that the Universe was not 'made' with us human-beings in mind. The people who seem to fall prey to the global-warming hysteria seem to have the bible image of a perfect world of Eden with some perfect climate, which somehow man due to his sins has managed to upset thereby causing all the 'ills' we witness. The fact is that there has never been anything like a 'perfect' climate. Climate has always been changing and will continually change by forces far greater than anything our puny little selves can hope to do. Even a single fart from a volcano creates far more CO2 than all our industries put together.

698 BadShot  Sat, May 16, 2009 11:38:47am

I feel a chill coming on.

699 Aye Pod  Sat, May 16, 2009 12:28:16pm

re: #693 JustAHouseWife

Over 60 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. I could say that AGW believers don't understand the vast history of the Earth and its geologic record just as much as Creationists don't, but that would be rude.

It would also be absolutely stupid. You really think that climate scientists lack even the roughly sketched history of temperature change over geological time that you give here? Do you think it's possible that they not only know and understand this but a whole lot more on the subject that you don't as well? For example, the fact that for much of the period shown in the graph you linked to, earth's atmosphere was very different in a number of ways to what it is today, and would not have supported earth's biosphere as it is today? Ironically enough though, this is exactly the sort of thing that wackos of all types have to say, from the creationists to the 'electric sun' bunch: ''mainstream' scientists are silly people, who are guilty of errors and misconceptions so simple that a child can see through them'. This not the persuasive approach you seem to think it is.

700 Aye Pod  Sat, May 16, 2009 12:37:26pm

re: #696 Joetheplumber

re: #697 Joetheplumber

As an engineer, who used computer simulations as part of my doctorate work, let me clearly point out that I don't share a disdain for computer modeling but I do have a disdain for the computer modeling used by the so-called 'climate experts'.

I have a disdain for engineers who claim to understand science better than the majority of scientists in that field, and then go on to make such laughable errors as:

Even a single fart from a volcano creates far more CO2 than all our industries put together.

Utter nonsense. See [Link: scienceblogs.com...]

Only the most seriously ill-informed of all the talking point parroting AGW 'sceptics' still trot that one out. You'll be telling me next that temperatures on Pluto have been rising...

701 BadShot  Sat, May 16, 2009 12:42:14pm

I saw a hummer go by a few minutes ago.. it had a fish on the bumper...I wet my pants.

702 BadShot  Sat, May 16, 2009 1:15:10pm

For someone who don't go in for no fancy book-learnin, these long sciencey posts are making my noggin tired...with that in mind...
Ok, let's assume it's true. Why not look on the bright, sunny side? I'll start...(I'm sure this has been done already, but since I'm still a hatchling, I don't know no better)
1) Longer body-surfing season.
2) Tornado alley shifts up to Canada.
3) No longer necessary seedy tanning salons can be converted to dermatology clinics. (gov't will facilitate these conversions)
4) Fast-track acclimating for all those nice folks moving up here from warmer climes.
5) Hit all those stupid christians will additional carbon tax for having to use more air conditioning during those stupid church services.

Like I said, I'm still a hatchling, so if any of these have already been suggested as reasons for optimism already...never mind.

703 zuckerlilly  Sat, May 16, 2009 1:41:55pm

Charles,

I had a closer look at the IPCC report 2007, group I, chapter I (let aside group II and III because these people are NO climate scientists but physicians, economists, engineers, sociologists etc. – so only one quarter of the IPCC scientists are climate scientists if at all) and picked the leading authors (all of them) as well as the contributing authors (only from Germany, Austria and the Switzerland to play it safe that none of them is related to one of the discriminated groups e.g. creationists/ID, Republicans, energy-industry, etc.)

Leading authors:

Prof. Ulrich Cubasch (Meteorolgisches Institut der Freien Universität Berlin) – he was a leading author in 2001 as well as in 2007. He formed a scientists team in 2002 after he had heard that Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick doubted the graph and data from Michael Mann (the famous “hockey stick”). He tells that the IPCC group also had doubts about Mann’s data because simply none of their data fit with them of MM. He is very disappointed about the ethical behavior of MM (he faced with his team the same problems as the both Canadians) and he and his team back McIntyre and McKitrick in every single point. They forced MM to correct his graph and data in 2004 at the IPCC report.

[Link: www.daserste.de...]

Yihui Ding (China) – no alarmism (note, he doesn’t say that CO2 is causing rising temperature)

There is no question about the fact of climate change. From the readings of global temperature over the past 140 years, the temperature has increased by 0.4 to 0.8°C.*) Another fact without question is that greenhouse-gas emissions are on the rise. *) GISS now claims 0,015/year, which is much lower – I have linked to it in another posting.

(…)

The question remains on the causes of climate change. Some believe it is caused by human activity. Their research is mostly based on model simulation. Yet some scientists think it's probably too early to draw the conclusion that it is caused by human activity.

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

Cecilie Mauritzen (Norway) – (she looks good ;-) but I wouldn’t call her a “rocket scientist” – not yet AND she is a true believer of Al Gore’s alarmism)

claims that the polar region must be better understood.

[Link: www.norway.org...]

Abdalah Mokssit (Morocco) – engineer, management, diplomat with no independent research

Thomas Peterson (USA) – claims that the „global cooling“ of the 1960’s and 70’s was a myth.

[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

Michael Prather (USA) –

'HD TV gas' 17,000 times worse for planet than CO2, claims boffin

[Link: www.reghardware.co.uk...]

so, now that we know it is the flat screen which is the enemy we come to my favorite of the contributing authors:

Prof. Dr. Frank Sirocko

It’s the cattle, stupid! ;-)

[Link: www.swr.de...]

To be fair, he didn’t write such nonsense in the IPCC report and his source is the WWF. Let me suppose: if the data don’t work to gain money you have to write such funny little articles :-)

Joachim Biercamp

Although he studied mathematics and physical oceanography he has worked since 1990 as a public relations manager and is responsible for visualization at the “Deutsche Klimarechenzentrum”.

Gabriele C. Hegerl

was involved in making her own proxy reconstruction of past climate using Michael Mann's same flawed method and incorporating Mann's PC1 as a proxy within her own limited set of proxies (where of course, it dominated the result).

704 zuckerlilly  Sat, May 16, 2009 1:51:01pm

J. Luterbacher

MUCH OF GLOBAL WARMING MIGHT BE NATURAL AFTER ALL, SENIOR SCIENTISTS ADMIT

Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 24, Issues 20-21 , November 2005, Pages 2164-2166
[Link: tinyurl.com...]

Christian Pfister

identified a core phase of the Little Ice Age between 1570 and 1630 (Grindelwald-Schwankung).

Erich Röckner

Very interesting: he mourns that we don’t know much about clouds and their impact of global warming, is very critical of climate-modeling (“a model can never be as complex as nature is”) but stated that the actual climate change is the most dramatic of the last 4 million years.

Thomas F. Stocker

I love him ;-) together with Hans von Storch und Eduardo Zorita he claims that the 13 warmest years since 1880 had been AFTER 1990.

[Link: www.epo.de...]

Friedrich Schott

Passed away.

Antje Weisheimer

She is a specialist for probabilistic prognoses and mathematical models but very critical about climate models. Her objection: we don’t know enough about how the physic of climate works and the data are arguable.

Ingeborg Auer

She takes care as a forecaster of a data base of glaciers in the Alps and has researched two small valleys in the Alps (“Two Valleys – two Stories”)


-----------------

Question: do all of them fit for the criteria as "rocket scientists" and why do you believe are some of them enunciating arguments which can be only defined as irrational?

705 JustAHouseWife  Sun, May 17, 2009 5:05:44am

re: #699 Jimmah

It would also be absolutely stupid. You really think that climate scientists lack even the roughly sketched history of temperature change over geological time that you give here? Do you think it's possible that they not only know and understand this but a whole lot more on the subject that you don't as well? For example, the fact that for much of the period shown in the graph you linked to, earth's atmosphere was very different in a number of ways to what it is today, and would not have supported earth's biosphere as it is today? Ironically enough though, this is exactly the sort of thing that wackos of all types have to say, from the creationists to the 'electric sun' bunch: ''mainstream' scientists are silly people, who are guilty of errors and misconceptions so simple that a child can see through them'. This not the persuasive approach you seem to think it is.

You say: " You really think that climate scientists lack even the roughly sketched history of temperature change over geological time that you give here?"

I don't know, they sure act like it. Like you, they dismiss it. And the zealots sure bet the public doesn't understand. Funny, without the geologic record, climatologists would not even know the climate could change at all would they? I've heard one important one was said to utter: "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period"!

You say: "For example, the fact that for much of the period shown in the graph you linked to, earth's atmosphere was very different in a number of ways to what it is today, and would not have supported earth's biosphere as it is today? "

For one thing you don't know what you are talking about! To prove it, tell us all, what exactly do you mean when you say "much of that period"?

107 million years ago? 25 million years ago? 6 million yrs ago? One million years? 785,230 years ago? 289,000 years ago? 113,650 years ago? 43,000 yrs ago, 16,331 yrs ago? 5,677 yrs ago? 1,358 yrs ago? 800 yrs ago?

Yeah. The main point of showing that graph wasn't to discuss the atmosphere -although that's interesting.
TIME was the point, and I see you still don't get it.

706 JustAHouseWife  Sun, May 17, 2009 11:10:23am

Whatever Charles.
"For example, the fact that for much of the period shown in the graph you linked to, earth's atmosphere was very different in a number of ways to what it is today, and would not have supported earth's biosphere as it is today?"

That is a sweeping generalization of HUGE sections of time; the C02 ppms on my graph are all over the place; much higher then today (and it still got cold) (and the opposite). It also implies that the way the Earth's "biosphere" in the past under any of those conditions; was either a mistake, or some kind of fluke; and "now" (whenever that started- you pick) is the correct condition of it. Okaaaay Suuuure!

707 Pythagoras  Sun, May 17, 2009 9:57:50pm

re: #695 Charles

Well, thanks anyway for taking the time. I know following all these threads is a huge chore. As I said before, I believe this issue will ultimately be decided by the sea ice, which will either recover or (at least in the Arctic) disappear. The references on that (NSIDC & JAXA AMSR-E) are not in dispute. Right now the global sea ice is way above average because the excess Antarctic sea ice more than compensates for the deficit in Arctic sea ice. The Arctic sea ice has recovered dramatically from it's 2007 low while the Antarctic's 2008 record high looks to be in danger of being eclipsed.

Keep an eye on the plots. If the TOTAL worldwide sea ice should eclipse the all time record high, it won't be easy to explain away. This NSIDC link takes you to both graphs.

[Link: nsidc.org...]


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 112 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 272 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1