Pretty damn good list. There some stuff there for me to read.

Sorry, but "global warming" is the Sun going through natural cycles.
There, I've said it. Down ding me all you want.

Aliens. They forgot about the aliens.

re: #2 anotherindyfilmguy

You should at least read the rebuttal to that point.

re: #2 anotherindyfilmguy

Sorry, but "global warming" is the Sun going through natural cycles.
There, I've said it. Down ding me all you want.

It's the Sun, Stupid:

Objection:

The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.

Answer:

It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the cause would be the sun. Well, it turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are too susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space.

This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work done on reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century before satellites were available. According to the Max Plank Institute where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is not enough to explain it all, but it is responsible for a large portion of that trend in temperature. See this chart of the observed temperature, the modelled temperature and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

I have bookmarked that page, lots to read about there. Thanks Charles.

Semi-OT: Banner ad at the top "Never buy electricity again"
Click and goes to a page with this video...

They're selling a perpetual motion machine.

re: #4 Killgore Trout

You should at least read the rebuttal to that point.

I just read that exact rebutt...looks like a decent book for rubes like me

re: #6 Ojoe

Me too. I should read the Co2 sections.

so,aerosol and particulate pollution caused the cooling from 1940 to 1970. how convenient. Then let China and India pollute all they want because it will cause global cooling.

Clearly this fellow has not convinced his own readers if the comments are any indication. And frankly I find he cherry picks info as badly as the worst skeptic. His discussion of the Antarctic is classic dissembling of AGWers.

The comments are interesting too.

Very clear debate.

Or for a Scientific Test of your knowledge of Global Warming, take the Global Warming Test here: [Link: www.geocraft.com...]

re: #2 anotherindyfilmguy

At one time, glaciers - hundreds, even thousands of feet high - were as far south as Dayton, OH. It seems that the Earth has been warming for millions of years, with only relatively brief respites of cooling in between.

To predict what the weather is going to be like in the next thousand years, or even hundred years based upon questionable historical temperature data from the last 7 or 8 decades, is exactly like predicting what the stock market will do in the next 100 years based upon the morning's trading session.

re: #13 nwclassic

Or for a Scientific Test of your knowledge of Global Warming, take the Global Warming Test here: [Link: www.geocraft.com...]

Good grief. You consider that ridiculous "quiz" a real rebuttal to my post?

I'm not sure what we mean by silly catch-phrases like "climate change" or "global warming," but it's pretty clear that, in the aggregate, anthropogenic global warming is a complete farce. That is, a farce in as much that the current state of science on the matter can make no such claim.

Honestly, I was hoping for more links to scientific sites for confirmation. A lot of what is stated is one guy's opinion. Many links do not work.

Some of you might be interested in this...
Republicans for Environmental Protection

Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) is a national grassroots organization dedicated to resurrecting the Republican Party’s great conservation tradition and strengthening its commitment to the responsible stewardship of our environment and natural resources.

REP is based on the idea that Conservation is Conservative® and that dedicated Republicans can and should be dedicated conservationists. We work to advance the original conservative philosophy that compels us to be good stewards of our great American heritage—clean air, clean water, wildlife, and wild lands.

They have a recent article post on global warming...
Absolutely Amazing Distortions Related to Global Warming
It's worth looking in to.

re: #12 Racer X

Here's a comment from the site that's worth repeating:

When you hear arguments like "it's cold outside right now therefore global warming's a LIIEEE", if you are at all familiar with the basic science, at least four inaccuracies in that statement should jump out right away. Pointing out those problems does not mean that the science is flimsy -- merely that it is being attacked (in this case by incompetent non-scientists). Pointing out what science *really* says (something that anyone with scientific training can deduce, but not everyone has this training) isn't indoctrination, it's just swatting down a straw man.

Exactly the same thing happens with evolution: People who don't understand the simple mechanisms of the theory strike out at their straw-man version of it. This doesn't mean evolution's a theory in crisis, or that the science isn't settled - merely that there's a manufactured public controversy that better science education can (hopefully) address.

re: #16 LeslieG

I'm not sure what we mean by silly catch-phrases like "climate change" or "global warming," but it's pretty clear that, in the aggregate, anthropogenic global warming is a complete farce. That is, a farce in as much that the current state of science on the matter can make no such claim.

You state it with such conviction that I almost hate to tell you: that's simply not true.

re: #2 anotherindyfilmguy

Sorry, but "global warming" is the Sun going through natural cycles.
There, I've said it. Down ding me all you want.

No not ding, just show me a link with the data that proves that.

re: #20 Charles

You state it with such conviction that I almost hate to tell you: that's simply not true.

:) But thank you for being funny, and polite, in any case!

The question is not whether the climate is changing. The question is whether the climate is changing due to something that people are doing or whether it is a natural flow of events that humans have nothing to do with. Looks like some people are trying to exploit the climate change for furthering their political agenda.

re: #13 nwclassic

Or for a Scientific Test of your knowledge of Global Warming, take the Global Warming Test here: [Link: www.geocraft.com...]

It is interesting to go through this quiz, though -- because it makes it clear how these kinds of falsehoods are being spread. It consists of one distortion of science after another, and many of the bogus claims are answered in my link above.

re: #21 avanti

No not ding, just show me a link with the data that proves that.

it's the libs fault

I have broken down my Global Warming/ Climate Change research into four seperate categories.

They are as follows

SPRING
SUMMER
FALL
WINTER
I await gov't grant money

//

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Some of you might be interested in this...
Republicans for Environmental Protection

They have a recent article post on global warming...
Absolutely Amazing Distortions Related to Global Warming
It's worth looking in to.

What? Republicans who accept the science of climate change?

Unpossible! Heretics! RINOs! Cast them out!

Dang it.

Several links go to articles from 2005, 2001, or earlier. I want data from this year!

Sleepers and stealth dingers, oh my!

Also referenced in How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic's comments:
The Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which "...people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence. It also explains why competence may weaken the projection of confidence because competent individuals falsely assume others are of equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I only take exception to the anthropogenic aspect of climate change and the draconian measures proposed to deal with it.

I'm not a Global Warming skeptic, but I do think that the Global Warming theory advocates don't know nearly as much as they think they do.

Read the book The Future of Everything by Dr. David Orrel. This is an extensive treatment of the science of modeling, what the theories of physics really are, where chaotic systems fit in, and how the current climate models work.

I think that people who stand up in front of crowds claiming much of ANY long term climate prediction is full of beans. The most we can say is that the earth probably is warming. Beyond that, we truly don't know.

re: #2 anotherindyfilmguy

There are several engines for warming - they start with the sun, include heat from the earth's core, and heat from chemical and biological processes all over the planet. The models try to account for all of these heat sources as best they can. They are not perfect.
The point of the theory is that if we increase the atmosphere's greenhouse gas to much then we adjust the thermstat of the planet. Not enough heat escapes and we warm more than we would like.

Down in the previous thread someone said something very humorous -- something to the effect that "things were much warmer 200 MYA and things were hunky dory"

Well if you consider insects the size of dogs and crocodiles in Northern Canada "hunky dory" then you need a cluebatting.

re: #23 commonman

The question is not whether the climate is changing. The question is whether the climate is changing due to something that people are doing or whether it is a natural flow of events that humans have nothing to do with. Looks like some people are trying to exploit the climate change for furthering their political agenda.

Part of science is searching for just that sort of answer. Science has looked into all the variables that effect climate and the man made increase in CO2 is the only variable that has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution. Since we know CO2 has gone up, and we know it's a greenhouse gas, it's pretty much a slam dunk. Add to that, the fact that CO2 levels track the increase so closely, and it makes a stronger case.

re: #27 Charles

Heh. I'm as skeptical/agnostic on global warming as many lizards but it baffles me that denial of global warming is a "conservative value". Seems self destructive to me.

re: #29 Charles

Sleepers and stealth dingers, oh my!

I guess your downdinger is REALLY mad at my #26, category 3

I took her/his (sorta) name in vain!!

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Some of you might be interested in this...
Republicans for Environmental Protection

They have a recent article post on global warming...
Absolutely Amazing Distortions Related to Global Warming
It's worth looking in to.

Thank you for posting that.

Bookmarked.

re: #23 commonman

The question is not whether the climate is changing. The question is whether the climate is changing due to something that people are doing or whether it is a natural flow of events that humans have nothing to do with. Looks like some people are trying to exploit the climate change for furthering their political agenda.

I think it would be foolish to not admit some are using science to push a political agenda, but the science itself isn't pushing one- the data isn't partisan.

re: #18 Killgore Trout

from the lower link, they seem to have reasonable take on reduced fresh water...a subject that should wake people up in a hurry...desalination!

What is the correct term for a person that

- Accepts that there has been an average warming trend over recent decades.
- Accepts that CO2 levels have some amount of upward influence on temperature.
- Accepts that Co2 levels have increased for man-made reasons.

but

- Doesn't view computer modeling/simulation as classical science in its current form and is therefore still unmoved by the OMG kind of predictions.
- Believes that science has not yet run its course in determining the extent/impact of man-made causes.
- Is so overwhelmed by the politicization and demagoguery that there is skepticism if anyone claiming to have "the real truth".
- Believes that there is a high degree of common purpose between AGW supporters and energy independence supporters and is frustrated that the two camps can't just agree to do some "right things" even if they disagree on why they would be doing them.

Is that a denier, alarmist, skeptic, or something else... or does it depend on who I ask.

There is no doubt human beings have an effect on the planet. The degree to which they do is still not sufficiently measured by science. This guy is quite arrogant and condescending in his delivery as well. "Mr. Know it All and the rest of you are stupid". My main problem with the radical proponents of AGW is not that they feel human activity is causing problems, it's their solutions to those problems. I reject the Kyoto Treaty as severely flawed.

Avanti sent this link to me one night when I dared challenge the gospel. This guy is smart and explains things in terms so that many who did not understand what the science says can get a better idea of what is being done in the area of research these days. Fair enough there.

Science is not my forte. Political stuff is one of my passions. The USA should never sign a treaty along the lines of Kyoto and for this guy to simply dismiss anyone who objects to it as being naive or stupid tells me a lot about his motivations. With Obama in, we might just open up our society to the jurisdiction of the UN and other world bodies, many of whom are hardly friendly to the USA. We rejected the treaty and used our own laws and motivations to curb our output of the evil gasses. And, we have reduced our numbers more efficiently than the Europeans who did adopt Kyoto. And, let's not forget about the largest polluter in the world, China. India is not far behind. This is where people like the author of this link lose me.

re: #21 avanti

No not ding, just show me a link with the data that proves that.

Conversely, show me the "proof" with respect to AGW. When scientists use words like "consensus", it's a time to be skeptical. At one period in history, it was the "scientific consensus" that black people evolved separately from white people, and that white people evolved from a "more beautiful" being located in the Caucasus mountain range. How did that "scientific consensus" hold up over time?

When scientists, who are financed, supported and motivated by political groups, begin to shout down their critics, it's also time to be skeptical - which something that the "believers" in AGW seemed to have checked at the door - their ability to be skeptical.

There are a couple good sites I would recommend.

Climate Audit

wattsupwiththat

I would also like to remind people - a lot of this global warming prediction stuff is based on computer models. I was a software developer for over 30 years. I promise you, anything that pretends to predict climate decades out is LOADED with untenable assumptions. They have to be as that is the nature of the beast.

And if you know the first thing about geology and the geologic record, there was a lot of climate change long before man became industrialized.

/and keep your damn hands off my incadescent bulbs, you nanny thug

Interesting website.

On the issue of consensus, I think Michael Crichton said it best when he addressed the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003.

This is what he had to say about consensus...

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

I found this tidbit interesting when poking around wikipedia the other day, on the entry about pollster Frank Luntz...

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the administration has done since that time. Though he now believes humans have contributed to global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.

As always with wikipedia, some amount of discretion is in order. The citation is to an article and transcript for a BBC program. Taken at face value though it appears that the change in language from 'global warming' to 'climate change' was an initiative by the skeptic side instead of the proponents of AGW that are commonly attributed with that development.

I only skimmed the link for this article, so I don't know if that one is mentioned in the list or not, but I found it interesting.

re: #26 sattv4u2

I have broken down my Global Warming/ Climate Change research into four seperate categories.

They are as follows

SPRING
SUMMER
FALL
WINTER
I await gov't grant money

//

'cept in Alaska

Almost winter

Winter

Still Winter

CONSTRUCTION!

(can't remember who to h/t)

re: #48 wahabicorridor

'cept in Alaska

Almost winter

Winter

Still Winter

CONSTRUCTION!

(can't remember who to h/t)

Or, Arizona...

Hot and Hotter (construction is year round)

re: #31 Van Helsing

See this section: This is Just a Natural Cycle

re: #48 wahabicorridor

'cept in Alaska

Almost winter

Winter

Still Winter

CONSTRUCTION!

(can't remember who to h/t)

New Hampshire (when I had a ski house in the mountains

10 months of snow
2 months of sucky sledding

Oh, here's another fun site

icecap

Interesting:

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

...Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

re: #40 albusteve

from the lower link, they seem to have reasonable take on reduced fresh water...a subject that should wake people up in a hurry...desalination!

That ain't gonna help the folks in the Himalayas.

re: #17 Race X
While I have only reviewed some of the areas I feel well enough versed in, I am close to sharing your opinion.

It's not so much climate change, or even the possible 'man made' climate change I fear, it's the 100% no-consensus-needed-to-prove 'man mad programs' and bureaucratic policies that will relieve me of my money because of the 'climate change', whether I want to donate or not, and of which I am pretty positive will in no way effect the problem beneficially or problematically after my 'donations' are received.

But that's just me...

/let my grandkids grandkids grandkids deal with it...as well as all the debt they just received the last 6 months...poor kids...

re: #45 Simple Voice

Thanks for putting that up. Crichton was right. There is no Consensus Science.

The United States and the Environment: Laggard or Leader?

To borrow the blunt language of Generation X and the "Millennials," does the United States suck when it comes to the environment? Contrary to the perception expressed in the epigraphs above, the answer turns out to be a resounding No; the United States remains the world's environmental leader and is likely to continue as such. But to paraphrase the old slogan of the propagandist, if a misperception is repeated long enough, it will become an unshakeable belief.

Environmental improvement in the United States has been substantial and dramatic almost across the board, as my annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators and other books and reports like it have shown for more than a decade.[3] The chief drivers of this improvement are economic growth, constantly increasing resource efficiency, innovation in pollution control technology, and the deepening of environmental values among the American public that have translated into changed behavior and consumer preferences. Government regulation has played a vital role to be sure, but in the grand scheme of things, regulation can be understood as a lagging indicator that often achieves results at needlessly high cost. Were it not for rising affluence and technological innovation, regulation would have much the same effect as King Canute commanding the tides.

How can you get deleted on a AGW thread?

[Link: www.friendsofscience.org...]

re: #54 Killgore Trout

That ain't gonna help the folks in the Himalayas.

they'll have to move to Orlando

re: #59 pat

Content complaints can get deleted on any thread Pat.

I'm starting to find some traces of moderate and sane conservative Republicans. I'll post some more articles later.

re: #59 pat

Global warming causes meltdowns.

re: #62 Thanos
Second-tier deletions:
"Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted..."

re: #61 albusteve

they'll have to move to Orlando

Those poor sherpas will have to find a new line of work.

James Inhoffe, Sen. from Oklahoma is on some the Environment and Public Works committee that keeps track of this stuff. (You can sign up for his emails - they're pretty good). He published a report.

Inhofe Report

Tons of links.

Also, keep in mind that the Stern IPCC report for the UN was intended to be a political document written to guide gov't policymakers - it does not claim to be science.

re: #57 SurferDoc

Thanks for putting that up. Crichton was right. There is no Consensus Science.

Crichton was off base. A "scientific consensus" does exist on climate change -- and that doesn't mean a popularity contest, it means that thousands of scientists all over the world have examined the data and done the research and found that it correlates.

re: #27 Charles

What? Republicans who accept the science of climate change?

Unpossible! Heretics! RINOs! Cast them out!

Charles, LFG may be a microcosm of the GOP is today, perhaps a bit more moderate. As you try and steer the forum toward facts without the politics, I see bloggers leave or get booted because they object to the intellectual honesty I see here by you and most Lizards.
The question is can the GOP get back to it's roots and win, if they lose the large numbers that really believe some of the stuff many moderates scoff at ?
Personally, I wonder how many will be left if the GOP looses the various deniers. Certainly the left has it's share of fringe elements, but they have no where to go.

The interesting thing about this is that we have a whole spectrum here at LGF. People who try to characterize the community at LGF as like minded drones following one leader are definitely wrong. We have alarmists, lukewarmists, the unconvinced, the denialists, to the hard core denial propagandists. Full spectrums make for good discussion.

re: #67 wahabicorridor

Inhofe is one of the most dishonest characters in this debate.

[Link: www.lomborg.com...] read this guy's book, of course he got blasted as a heretic.And so what if the climate is warming, if Tulsa will have the climate of Dallas, what changes.In 1980, Dallas had something like 70 days in a row over 100, and 10 in a row over 110. Nothing like it since. We had droughts in the 30's and 50's, we built reservoirs and levees.Warming means longer growing seasons.Cold kills far more people than heat. What Lomborg looks at is the cost /benefit. Money could be better spent on water, sanitation and other areas than trying to reduce global temps by 1 degree.

re: #66 Killgore Trout

Those poor sherpas will have to find a new line of work.

Watchu talking about Killgore, they'll have oceanfront property when the sea level rise 20,000 feet due to all this global warming.

/

I always find the opinion of a Liberal on what the GOP needs to be most useful.

re: #38 Sharmuta

I think it would be foolish to not admit some are using science to push a political agenda, but the science itself isn't pushing one- the data isn't partisan.

I wish I still shared your blue-eyed idealism about science and its practitioners. Scientists are human and, sadly, not immune to wishful thinking, herd-mentality, self-deceipt, and rent-seeking. The higher the stakes in any given field, the more it brings out the best - and worst - in them.

And for all the "free market health care" fundamentalists here, a bit of truth in a miasmic swamp of lies. This is from my cousin, a Republican of impeccable credentials (she worked for Ellen Sauerbrey (R., MD) back when she was a congresscritter).

She writes:

You know the disinformation's bad when people are reading Sarah Palin's comments on health care and thinking they're true! After being laid off and having to deal with whether or not to insure my kids through COBRA ($1400/mo) when I had no income coming in and - when I got insurance after getting a new job - having to deal with all new doctors because the insurance plan was different, I truly believe people don't realize how precarious the current system is.

So without further ado: You Do Not Have Health Insurance.

Consensus?

See, that scares me. Science is about presenting a hypothesis and letting others try to tear it down. If it stands up to scrutiny then its all good. So far GW is standing up. AGW is also gaining believers.

What action to take?

Now here is where we have the most disagreement. This is where we really need to think clearly and come up with rational solutions. Can we reverse man-made warming? Is it even possible with earth's population increasing by another couple billion people in the next 50 years?

The answer may very well be "humans are totally focked". In this case evolution comes in to play. Do we evolve and adapt to our warmer climate? We must.

re: #67 wahabicorridor

James Inhoffe, Sen. from Oklahoma is on some the Environment and Public Works committee that keeps track of this stuff. (You can sign up for his emails - they're pretty good). He published a report.

Inhofe Report

Tons of links.

Also, keep in mind that the Stern IPCC report for the UN was intended to be a political document written to guide gov't policymakers - it does not claim to be science.

James Inhofe is one of the very worst of the dishonest climate change "skeptics." He's one who definitely deserves the term "denier." He's a fundamentalist with ties to the Dominionist movement, who has publicly stated that global warming is false because God gave man dominion over the earth.

And that's just scratching the surface of how crazy Inhofe is. He is absolutely NO expert on anything related to science -- he's an embarrassment to the GOP.

re: #68 Charles

Crichton was off base. A "scientific consensus" does exist on climate change -- and that doesn't mean a popularity contest, it means that thousands of scientists all over the world have examined the data and done the research and found that it correlates.

A scientific consensus is claimed. That does not mean it is correct. Others disagree who have scientific credentials to support their position as well. It does not invalidate Crichton's remarks that consensus is not part of the scientific method.

I don't put much stock in those realclimate guys. Their shannegans are routinely exposed on climateaudit.org for example.

re: #75 Former Belgian

I wish I still shared your blue-eyed idealism about science and its practitioners. Scientists are human and, sadly, not immune to wishful thinking, herd-mentality, self-deceipt, and rent-seeking. The higher the stakes in any given field, the more it brings out the best - and worst - in them.

I trust in the scientific method. All are welcome to put the data to the most thorough of examinations and release their results to likewise be reviewed.

re: #68 Charles

Crichton was off base. A "scientific consensus" does exist on climate change -- and that doesn't mean a popularity contest, it means that thousands of scientists all over the world have examined the data and done the research and found that it correlates.

I can think of a number of things on which a scientific "consensus" once existed and which were not just wrong, but dead wrong.

Science has looked into all the variables that effect climate and the man made increase in CO2 is the only variable that has changed dramatically since the industrial revolution. Since we know CO2 has gone up, and we know it's a greenhouse gas, it's pretty much a slam dunk. Add to that, the fact that CO2 levels track the increase so closely, and it makes a stronger case.

Correlation is not the same thing as causation. It's a logical fallacy to assume that it is. No slam dunk.

You will find excellent information, and much to help you combat the MSM super-boosted "Al Gore" automaton brigades here, at A Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic (Man-Made) Global Warming

I'm confused here...with all due respect Charles do you believe that humans cause global warming?

re: #68 Charles

Crichton was off base. A "scientific consensus" does exist on climate change -- and that doesn't mean a popularity contest, it means that thousands of scientists all over the world have examined the data and done the research and found that it correlates.

Consensus is political, not scientific. Arguing that we should believe something because there is a consensus of experts is a form of the appeal to authority fallacy.

re: #2 anotherindyfilmguy

Sorry, but "global warming" is the Sun going through natural cycles.
There, I've said it. Down ding me all you want.

OK.

re: #77 Racer X

Consensus?

See, that scares me. Science is about presenting a hypothesis and letting others try to tear it down. If it stands up to scrutiny then its all good. So far GW is standing up. AGW is also gaining believers.

And what should we call it when the science stands up to the scrutiny? "Consensus" worked- at least it did when the scientific community applied it to evolution.

re: #73 Desert Dog

Watchu talking about Killgore, they'll have oceanfront property when the sea level rise 20,000 feet due to all this global warming.

/

Sounds like you just watched "Waterworld" recently...

A "scientific consensus" does exist on climate change -- and that doesn't mean a popularity contest, it means that thousands of scientists all over the world have examined the data and done the research and found that it correlates.

Once again, correlation is not causation.

re: #85 RebelDebater

I'm confused here...with all due respect Charles do you believe that humans cause global warming?

Yes. You mean you don't?

re: #78 Charles

Nothing in his report cites any religious material.

re: #90 The Dude

Once again, correlation is not causation.

You realize they do have data that rules out other factors?

re: #50 Killgore Trout

See this section: This is Just a Natural Cycle

Thanks. Interesting stuff and I'll be reading the whole thing when I have more time.

The statement that there is no identified natural cause is key. There are many variables that are not identified. If everything was well known then the climate models would be able to predict current conditions based on historical input. They don't. Nothing predicted the leveling of temperature over the last decade. If there is something, I haven't found it.

Please share.

re: #29 Charles

Sleepers and stealth dingers, oh my!

Why would anybody down-ding a source of information?

re: #78 Charles

James Inhofe is one of the very worst of the dishonest climate change "skeptics." He's one who definitely deserves the term "denier." He's a fundamentalist with ties to the Dominionist movement, who has publicly stated that global warming is false because God gave man dominion over the earth.

And that's just scratching the surface of how crazy Inhofe is. He is absolutely NO expert on anything related to science -- he's an embarrassment to the GOP.

Which is the most egregious theological crap-pile since Gnosticism. If God gave us dominion, that means we're responsible.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

re: #89 Macker

Sounds like you just watched "Waterworld" recently...

it's unwatchable, really, I tried once

re: #89 Macker

Sounds like you just watched "Waterworld" recently...

Loves that movie.

scienceblogs.com hosts a ton of blogs I read regularly. Like ted.com, it's one of the sites I can lose hours just browsing around. Tons of stuff to learn about, think about, disagree with, agree with, etc. Highly recommended.

re: #95 reine.de.tout

Why would anybody down-ding a source of information?

It shows you how irrational some people have gotten about this issue. They don't even want to see anything that challenges their prejudices.

re: #95 reine.de.tout

Why would anybody down-ding a source of information?

the doofi are loose

re: #42 Desert Dog

There is no doubt human beings have an effect on the planet. The degree to which they do is still not sufficiently measured by science. This guy is quite arrogant and condescending in his delivery as well. "Mr. Know it All and the rest of you are stupid". My main problem with the radical proponents of AGW is not that they feel human activity is causing problems, it's their solutions to those problems. I reject the Kyoto Treaty as severely flawed.

Avanti sent this link to me one night when I dared challenge the gospel. This guy is smart and explains things in terms so that many who did not understand what the science says can get a better idea of what is being done in the area of research these days. Fair enough there.

Science is not my forte. Political stuff is one of my passions. The USA should never sign a treaty along the lines of Kyoto and for this guy to simply dismiss anyone who objects to it as being naive or stupid tells me a lot about his motivations. With Obama in, we might just open up our society to the jurisdiction of the UN and other world bodies, many of whom are hardly friendly to the USA. We rejected the treaty and used our own laws and motivations to curb our output of the evil gasses. And, we have reduced our numbers more efficiently than the Europeans who did adopt Kyoto. And, let's not forget about the largest polluter in the world, China. India is not far behind. This is where people like the author of this link lose me.

I agree with a few parts of your post. I think the debate should be what to about AGW, at what effect and cost. I also think it's wrong to be condescending to skeptics, even if their opinion have been formed by Fox TV or the constantly hearing only from skeptics.
i.e. if you guys tried to convince me against some long held personal beliefs, it would take a lot of facts before it sank in past my stubbornness. You would tale little bites around the edges, then I might listen closer before I came around.

You realize they do have data that rules out other factors?

If that was strictly so there would be no debate.

re: #94 Van Helsing

If there is something, I haven't found it.

Please share.

Don't ask me, I'm just encouraging people to read the linked article before they dismiss it.

re: #88 Sharmuta

And what should we call it when the science stands up to the scrutiny? "Consensus" worked- at least it did when the scientific community applied it to evolution.

I'm getting very close to agreeing with the "consensus" regarding GW. AGW is a bit behind that, but I hafta admit I'm getting there.

Where I absolutely DO NOT see consensus is what to do about global warming.

re: #85 RebelDebater

Do you doubt that we contribute some of it?

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI): Also known as total incoming solar radiation (insolation). The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth can change as solar activity changes. This is a known factor influencing global temperatures and thus climate. Sometimes people will reference sunspots, which correlate fairly well with TSI (more sunspots generally means more incoming solar radiation), but solar irradiance is the specific factor impacting the Earth's climate.

Since 1978 we've had satellites measuring TSI directly, and prior to that scientists use "proxies". A proxy variable is something that is probably not in itself of any great interest, but from which a variable of interest can be obtained. For example, climate scientists use tree rings and ice core layers as proxies to determine past global temperatures. In the case of TSI, one such proxy is beryllium-10 concentrations.

So the question again arises - could changes in TSI be responsible for the recent global warming? Since we've had satellites measuring TSI directly since 1978, and this is the period of the greatest warming in recent history (0.5 degrees Celsius over the past 30 years), all we have to do is look at the satellite data to determine if solar irradiance has similarly increased over that period.

Again, the answer is no. On average, TSI has remained essentially unchanged since 1978. According to the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, it hasn't increased (on average) in about 70 years.

[Link: www.ecohuddle.com...]

re: #91 Charles

Yes. You mean you don't?

I would make a amendmnet from "cause" to "contribute too".

I look at the data to show me how much that contribution is

re: #95 reine.de.tout

Why would anybody down-ding a source of information?

The truth isn't always popular.

I'm no expert in this area, but I tend to distrust the "solutions" offered by the likes of Al Gore -- even if there really is a man-made problem. That said, it's worth noting that there really is some ongoing debate. For example, read the conclusions at the end of this paper: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. It's in a publication of the American Physical Society, which is far from a fringe group. And then note that the APS is re-opening the debate on man-caused global warming, acknowledging that there is considerable dispute about the subject in the scientific community.

re: #99 negativ

Agreed. Ted has some really great stuff.

Here's another site. I don't read this one as often, but it does do a good job of covering the variables involved in climate change

World Climate Report

re: #96 Cato the Elder

Which is the most egregious theological crap-pile since Gnosticism. If God gave us dominion, that means we're responsible.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

All praise the great and powerful Gnome

/

re: #81 Sharmuta

I trust in the scientific method. All are welcome to put the data to the most thorough of examinations and release their results to likewise be reviewed.

I have awaited the scientific method to prove or disprove the premise. The political intrusion by Al Gore early on made me uneasy.

I try to stay out of the religious war called AGW. There is no upside, and the downside are lots of people with badly hurt feelings.

The links you posted include a number of very important critiques of his articles. One in particular is devastating, and he does not recover from it at all. Specifically this section is actually what a fairly large number of non-politicized scientists do think now. The third comment is devastating to his argument, specifically

1) You assume human intervention is the rule and require others to prove otherwise (example: they need to identify just what the mechanism is behind this alleged natural cycle.

This implies a testable hypothesis. It is untestable for a number of reasons.

That author clarifies his point in the fifth comment

Let's talk about your hypothesis: You can only statistically "reject" a null hypothesis. The only testable hypothesis is that humans caused global warming. The best case scenario for people that believe humans caused global warming is to "fail to reject" the null hypothesis. This does not mean (based on your background, I assume you know this) that we have proved that humans did cause global warming. It just means that it is possible that humans caused global warming - which is what I am asserting.

To be blunt, this is the crux of the counter-arguments. There is no testable case, and worse, no way to disambiguate signal from the noise.

Sadly, his entire site is written this way. Sort of the "knock the chip off my shoulder" approach to scientific arguments. The rebuttal might not seem so to most, but it is devastating to those who claim the evidence is irrefutable. The poster asked a simple question there, specifically, how you can claim that you have a signal, when you cannot measure the background ... the null hypothesis?

That is the core, the very essence of real science. If you cannot show an unambiguous signal, differentiated from the background, you are not talking about scientific results. You are talking pure conjecture.

The fundamental problem with AGW is that we know that in paleo-climatology, the earth has had many cooling and warming periods. Several scientists have postulated Snowball earth theories based upon data they have, but it would be correct to say that there is no consensus on this.

Despite loud protestations from the AGW community, there really is no consensus among scientists on AGW. Recently my own scientific society, American Physical Society, has had a near revolt over statements made by an editor-in-chief on this. Many are demanding he retract, several are demanding he step down.

I am personally disbelieve in AGW for a number of reasons. The foremost is that the existing real evidence points to a cyclical nature of heating and cooling, and is both a simpler theory, and better supported by observational data. Scientists tend to call that Occam's razor. The simpler theory usually is right. Not always.

The site's owner literally tries to discredit "unknown effects" as being possible to help explain the data they have. As a scientist, I find this sad. Scientists are *supposed* to be skeptics. They are supposed to not fall in love with theories.

AGW sadly, has more hallmarks of a religion than a science.

Is our climate changing? Yes. This is beyond dispute. We have evidence that demonstrates this.

Are we doing this? We don't know. We have, sadly, no way to know.

Should we continue to study this? Yes.

Should we strive for more efficient power production and transportation with a lower impact upon our environment? Obviously yes, but not for AGW reasons.

re: #105 Racer X

I'm getting very close to agreeing with the "consensus" regarding GW. AGW is a bit behind that, but I hafta admit I'm getting there.

Where I absolutely DO NOT see consensus is what to do about global warming.

I think that's where the debate needs to move. Accepting the science does not mean accepting the left's solutions. We need ideas and proposals of our own, but we can't do that when we're denying the science.

re: #81 Sharmuta

I trust in the scientific method. All are welcome to put the data to the most thorough of examinations and release their results to likewise be reviewed.

That trust is warranted in that, over time, science as a process is self-correcting. Which doesn't mean it can't be "stuck on stupid" or barking up the wrong tree for decades at a time.

As for "release their results to be reviewed", I could tell you a few juicy stories about that. Only the more extreme ones (cases of outright fraud, not cherry-picking or "sexing up" of ambiguous data) make it to a book like this one:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

or this one

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

re: #98 Killgore Trout

Loves that movie.

Me too.

OK - likes that movie. Love is a strong word.

re: #112 wahabicorridor

Here's another site. I don't read this one as often, but it does do a good job of covering the variables involved in climate change

World Climate Report

World Climate Report:

World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society,[1] a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association.

re: #68 Charles

Crichton didn't doubt science, he doubted consensus.

I buy into the It's the sun stupid theory myself. There is defiantly warming there's no denying it. I also believe we should be doing everything we can to stop burning all of the fossil fuels and putting the waste energy into the environment. That may very well be the cause of some if not all of the warming.

But to deny that a huge nuclear furnace that is the source of all life and basically the weather on our planet has little or nothing to do with warming is IMO as naïve as claiming there is no warming. I know there are counter arguments as you have posted Charles, but there are still those that believe the sun is the larger cause of warming. I also believe and read on one of the links from the site you linked to that the number of scientists buying into that theory is growing. Further some believe the warming cycle is over and a period of cooling has started which might become a very cool cycle.

Where I have issues with my thoughts on this is that if 100,000's of thousands of year old ice is melting now for the first time with the last ice age being about 12-13 thousand years ago why is now the first time that has happened.

It is hard to believe the first time this has happened is during my life time. So yeah I've contradicted myself at least once here. Then that's how it goes when the jury is still out for what is definite cause of warming. F.Y.I. I just bought a 2010 Prius last month and ride to work and almost every nice day Mrs. jhrhv buys green soaps and the like.

re: #43 JarHeadLifer

Conversely, show me the "proof" with respect to AGW. When scientists use words like "consensus", it's a time to be skeptical. At one period in history, it was the "scientific consensus" that black people evolved separately from white people, and that white people evolved from a "more beautiful" being located in the Caucasus mountain range. How did that "scientific consensus" hold up over time?

When scientists, who are financed, supported and motivated by political groups, begin to shout down their critics, it's also time to be skeptical - which something that the "believers" in AGW seemed to have checked at the door - their ability to be skeptical.

I'm open to being a skeptic, but not a skeptic motivated by politics. I hear the financed by and money involved, but don't get the profit motive for NASA, NOAA, or the EPA.

re: #114 debutaunt

I have awaited the scientific method to prove or disprove the premise. The political intrusion by Al Gore early on made me uneasy.

I agree. I hate the politicization of science. But it doesn't change the data, or the fact that the deniers are using tactics like the intelligent design movement. That makes me every bit as uneasy as al gore's involvement.

re: #105 Racer X

I'm getting very close to agreeing with the "consensus" regarding GW. AGW is a bit behind that, but I hafta admit I'm getting there.

Where I absolutely DO NOT see consensus is what to do about global warming.

I am scientifically challenged in this area... just hands off my money and no one gets hurt.

re: #5 Charles

It's the sun, stupid

The blog is a good link, but biased, it puts the pro-AGW arguments in the best light and the anti-AGM arguments in the worst. That is not really honest.

Why doesn't this mention the eleven-year solar cycle?

And it may not be just the sun that warms the earth, recent news item said that the El Nino corresponds to global temperatures over the following year, and El Nino is probably (?) volcanic, anyway it's very unlikely to relate to solar.

Overall, I suppose I believe there is *some* degree of AGW, but it seems likely small, probably swamped by natural variation, and maybe we could use a little more warmth.

If it turns out we need to do something to fight *natural* variations, well, that's another subject.

OTOH, I'm all for limiting CO2 and carbon consumption and alternative energy, and was as a kid, before Paul Erlich was even a known name, or anybody at all was thinking about global warming.

And, weather or not, looks like finding enough fresh water for everyone on Earth is going to be a huge issue in the 21st and 22nd century, come what may, if anyone needs something to worry about.

re: #63 Killgore Trout

I'm starting to find some traces of moderate and sane conservative Republicans. I'll post some more articles later.

Put President Bush on the list, he came around to the reality of AGW.

re: #127 Oh no...Sand People!

I am scientifically challenged in this area... just hands off my money and no one gets hurt.

Same here, and agreed!

re: #107 Sharmuta

So, (I'm just playing devils advocate here) if the TSI has not changed in 30 years, wouldn't it be rational to assume there is a lag time in the cooling effect? I mean you would not see instantaneous cooling - it would take decades.

Hey ... The 'New Comments' button now even tells you how many
new comments await your attention.

Charles , you spoil us !

re: #131 Racer X

...I mean you would not see instantaneous cooling - it would take decades.

Decades, millenia, eons...whatever.

re: #132 Nene1

Hey ... The 'New Comments' button now even tells you how many
new comments await your attention.

Charles , you spoil us !

Yeah, I was JUST about to mention that also!

/GMTA!

re: #115 kafir

I try to stay out of the religious war called AGW. There is no upside, and the downside are lots of people with badly hurt feelings.

The links you posted include a number of very important critiques of his articles. One in particular is devastating, and he does not recover from it at all. Specifically this section is actually what a fairly large number of non-politicized scientists do think now. The third comment is devastating to his argument, specifically

To be blunt, this is the crux of the counter-arguments. There is no testable case, and worse, no way to disambiguate signal from the noise.

Sadly, his entire site is written this way. Sort of the "knock the chip off my shoulder" approach to scientific arguments. The rebuttal might not seem so to most, but it is devastating to those who claim the evidence is irrefutable. The poster asked a simple question there, specifically, how you can claim that you have a signal, when you cannot measure the background ... the null hypothesis?

That is the core, the very essence of real science. If you cannot show an unambiguous signal, differentiated from the background, you are not talking about scientific results. You are talking pure conjecture.

The fundamental problem with AGW is that we know that in paleo-climatology, the earth has had many cooling and warming periods. Several scientists have postulated Snowball earth theories based upon data they have, but it would be correct to say that there is no consensus on this.

Despite loud protestations from the AGW community, there really is no consensus among scientists on AGW. Recently my own scientific society, American Physical Society, has had a near revolt over statements made by an editor-in-chief on this. Many are demanding he retract, several are demanding he step down.

I am personally disbelieve in AGW for a number of reasons. The foremost is that the existing real evidence points to a cyclical nature of heating and cooling, and is both a simpler theory, and better supported by observational data. Scientists tend to call that Occam's razor. The simpler theory usually is right. Not always.

The site's owner literally tries to discredit "unknown effects" as being possible to help explain the data they have. As a scientist, I find this sad. Scientists are *supposed* to be skeptics. They are supposed to not fall in love with theories.

AGW sadly, has more hallmarks of a religion than a science.

Is our climate changing? Yes. This is beyond dispute. We have evidence that demonstrates this.

Are we doing this? We don't know. We have, sadly, no way to know.

Should we continue to study this? Yes.

Should we strive for more efficient power production and transportation with a lower impact upon our environment? Obviously yes, but not for AGW reasons.

Every one of your talking points is rebutted by the posts at the site, more data comes every day. If you are trying to say humans do not contribute some warming to the planet from our activities you are completely and provably wrong. A five year old can do it. So are you trying to say that in modern times we have not contributed to a warmer climate?

re: #91 Charles

Well sir I am not convinced that humans have great effect on global temperatures. I think its clear that the earth has been heating and cooling itself for millennia.

re: #128 itellu3times

The blog is a good link, but biased, it puts the pro-AGW arguments in the best light and the anti-AGM arguments in the worst. That is not really honest.

Why doesn't this mention the eleven-year solar cycle?

And it may not be just the sun that warms the earth, recent news item said that the El Nino corresponds to global temperatures over the following year, and El Nino is probably (?) volcanic, anyway it's very unlikely to relate to solar.

Overall, I suppose I believe there is *some* degree of AGW, but it seems likely small, probably swamped by natural variation, and maybe we could use a little more warmth.

If it turns out we need to do something to fight *natural* variations, well, that's another subject.

OTOH, I'm all for limiting CO2 and carbon consumption and alternative energy, and was as a kid, before Paul Erlich was even a known name, or anybody at all was thinking about global warming.

And, weather or not, looks like finding enough fresh water for everyone on Earth is going to be a huge issue in the 21st and 22nd century, come what may, if anyone needs something to worry about.

not a money maker yet...it's time will come and there is only one reasonable solution...nuclear power

re: #123 avanti

I'm open to being a skeptic, but not a skeptic motivated by politics. I hear the financed by and money involved, but don't get the profit motive for NASA, NOAA, or the EPA.

Let me lay two words on you - Job Security. In most families, that's all the "profit motive" that's necessary.

re: #120 Charles

Charles: do you have any idea how much research on alternative fuels and other "green stuff" (including AGW stuff) is likewise funded by petroleum companies?

It actually makes perfect sense for energy companies to branch out in this manner, lest they suffer the same fate as the railroad companies who never understood they're in the transportation[/energy] business, not the train[/petroleum] business.

re: #117 Sharmuta

My point exactly...I reject the leftist and global government bits of the "solution" offered up right now. That does not mean I am against taking action against human production of pollutants and greenhouse gases.

re: #132 Nene1

Hey ... The 'New Comments' button now even tells you how many
new comments await your attention.

Charles , you spoil us !

But I did kind of like the 'wow, what's the "new comments" christmas effect' that causes me to hit the "new comments" button 200 times per second...

re: #84 LeslieG

Thanks! Bookmarked ('tho that sure doesn't look like any coyotes we get 'round these parts!)

Ok, any general consensus on what is the percentage of man-made CO2 produced each year versus natural emissions? Anyone interested in forming a "scientific group" to determine if peeing in the ocean will raise the sea level, call me at BR549.

wow, lots of deletes! This is better than a Creationists thread!

re: #140 Desert Dog

My point exactly...I reject the leftist and global government bits of the "solution" offered up right now. That does not mean I am against taking action against human production of pollutants and greenhouse gases.

hear, hear!

If I disagree with a comment, I will post a rebuttal. If a post is just stupid I will downding. But thats just me.

Part One of Five...

Dr. Ian Plimer "Human Induced Climate Change - A Load of Hot Air)

You can reference the other 4 parts if you like. People with a more scientific bent can develop their own opinion on this doctors work, I put it out here for the sake of bipartisan debate.

re: #139 Former Belgian

Charles: do you have any idea how much research on alternative fuels and other "green stuff" (including AGW stuff) is likewise funded by petroleum companies?

It actually makes perfect sense for energy companies to branch out in this manner, lest they suffer the same fate as the railroad companies who never understood they're in the transportation[/energy] business, not the train[/petroleum] business.

Yes, I do know that petroleum companies fund those things, and being funded by one is not necessarily a red flag.

However, time and time again when I look into these anti-AGW websites and personalities, they have connections to the energy industry. One website means nothing, but it's far more than one site.

re: #140 Desert Dog

My point exactly...I reject the leftist and global government bits of the "solution" offered up right now. That does not mean I am against taking action against human production of pollutants and greenhouse gases.

they themselves resist the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to reduce carbon output...therefore how can they be trusted?

re: #122 jhrhv

Read the page linked, no scientist doubts that the sun contributes to the warm of the planet, and all of the models take that factor into account. Consider your strawman cinder.

re: #96 Cato the Elder

Which is the most egregious theological crap-pile since Gnosticism. If God gave us dominion, that means we're responsible.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I think the actual fundamentalist stance is that man destroying his environment isn't part of Christian eschatology so therefor there is no real danger from AGW, or for that matter nuclear war, etc. The rapture will occur before it gets too bad.

re: #149 albusteve

they themselves resist the quickest, easiest, cheapest way to reduce carbon output...therefore how can they be trusted?

Nukes?

Null hypothesis primer:

Place a thing to be measured somewhere. Place a measuring instrument somewhere. Measure, but with nothing connected. This is your background ... your "null" signal. Now connect to the thing to be measured. This is your signal. If your signal is inseparable from the background ... if you cannot statistically isolate a real non-background signal from your background (due to noise or whatnot else), your measurement is not yielding a signal you can talk about.

In order for this to work, you need two measurements. One with device connected to the experiment, one without.

We can't get that here. We have one measurement, and we don't know if it is the background or the attached.

I also didn't have space in the previous post to note that like AGW, I thought String Theory was a religion as well. Beautiful math, no way to test.

Then along comes someone and shows that a certain anti-deSitter spacetime provides a really nice way to describe superfluidity, which we can measure in the lab. In the process, they found a very nice similarity between black holes and quantized flow vortices in the superfluid.

This was ~6 months ago.

Maybe we will eventually see something testable emerge from the AGW crowd, a way to disambiguate the signal from the background. Real scientists and ex-ones like me, aren't holding our breaths. AlGore got a hold of this issue, and it has now largely lost any real scientific merits. Its now a talking point of one party.

Which it shouldn't be. Politics should stay way the hell away from science. Really.

All of these temperatures are put into computer models that are subject to human error. This is why, for the United States, that 1932 became the hottest year on record when an error was found in the data FROM NASA, which previously showed 1998 was the hottest year on record (this first time I saw this was actually on LGF, go figure). On top of that, this has been one of the coolest summers for many areas in the Unites States (roughly 3,000 record low temperatures occurred in July), and snow is falling in places across the globe that haven't had snow in decades or even ever before. I think this youtube video (this is part 1, be sure to watch the other three parts) gives just about anyone some good reasons to be a global warming skeptic.

At the end of the day, I don't think either side of this debate knows what the heck is really going on. I can easily go to one website, read some info, then go to another and find something that contradicts that info. And it is for this reason that climate bills should not become law.

re: #137 albusteve

not a money maker yet...it's time will come and there is only one reasonable solution...nuclear power

Are you kidding, that will be the end of the world as we know it :)

See how the temperature is measured. Have a good cry.
[Link: www.surfacestations.org...]

re: #144 Desert Dog

wow, lots of deletes! This is better than a Creationists thread!

almost the same thing

Let me add one more thing. The current AGW argument is a fossil.

The real AGW arguments were the virulent panic in the 1980s that involved hockey-stick predictions that the Earth would soon start on an irreversible heating that would raise average temperatures by - I dunno, ten, fifty, a hundred degrees, "like Venus" (which is hot enough to melt lead). Those arguments went away sometime in the late 1990s, I don't think even Gorebots spout them anymore. Now the arguments are about a couple of degrees celcius over centuries. MAYBE the coastlines will change a little, if that all pans out. But it does cause me more skepticism, when the previous panic has calmed itself by about 95% already.

Things like this are often ignored.

www.eap-journal.com.au/download.php?file=671

re: #152 Desert Dog

Nukes?

yes

re: #136 RebelDebater

Well sir I am not convinced that humans have great effect on global temperatures. I think its clear that the earth has been heating and cooling itself for millennia.

Yeah that's clear - but the warming in modern times does not match expectations or modeling, and the greenhouse effect is also clear and well proven factor of warming.

re: #135 Thanos

Every one of your talking points is rebutted by the posts at the site, more data comes every day. If you are trying to say humans do not contribute some warming to the planet from our activities you are completely and provably wrong. A five year old can do it. So are you trying to say that in modern times we have not contributed to a warmer climate?

I agree that humans HAVE to, just have to have some affect. But how quantifiable can it be? And how do we determine who has to foot the bill? Somehow I have a feeling that if and when it is legislated that AGW is real...we the people...of the U.S. only...will pay for it. Nothing will come of that money either.

I got 5 bucks on the bolded part, since that might be my only discretionary income available after the legislation is passed...

re: #120 Charles

Charles, so what?

re: #101 albusteve

the doofi are loose

Heh.

By the way, Pullus Julius was only partly correct when he claimed that doofus is of the fourth, not the second, declension.

That was true in pre-Classical Latin. For example, in the Twelve Tablets we find: "Qui pecuniam doofu subducit, sacer esto" ("cursed be he who steals from an idiot"). But later the noun is assimilated to the second conj., viz. Piny Ep. 6.89.7, "Opinio doofi neglegere sit" ("the notions of an idiot should be ignored").

Brought to you courtesy of the Ministry of Useless Information.

re: #127 Oh no...Sand People!

I am scientifically challenged in this area... just hands off my money and no one gets hurt.

more like a Chicago style offer you can't refuse "Your money or your life!"

re: #153 kafir

Stop with the pontificating and strawmen assertions. Join the discussion by answering some questions you were asked above.

re: #140 Desert Dog

My point exactly...I reject the leftist and global government bits of the "solution" offered up right now. That does not mean I am against taking action against human production of pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Air pollution can be quite bad enough even without any greenhouse effect. Colleagues of mine who were on business trips to large Chinese cities told me of intermittent breathing difficulties. Think LA smog of old, only ten times worse.

This quite aside from the issue that fossil fuel reserves are finite and mankind will have to wean itself off fossil fuel one way or another. But every serious way meets eco-naysayers, NIMBYism, and sordid romantics dreaming of a pre-industrial life.

re: #151 scion9

I think the actual fundamentalist stance is that man destroying his environment isn't part of Christian eschatology so therefor there is no real danger from AGW, or for that matter nuclear war, etc. The rapture will occur before it gets too bad.

SWEET! So you mean I can use and abuse the earth for all it's worth and I'll just be beamed up to avoid the consequences of the mess I created!? That's how religion works? Nice, count me in.

/To bad I don't buy it. We're gonna have to take care of this place.

re: #131 Racer X

So, (I'm just playing devils advocate here) if the TSI has not changed in 30 years, wouldn't it be rational to assume there is a lag time in the cooling effect? I mean you would not see instantaneous cooling - it would take decades.

It doesn't change the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which can and likely will affect climate.

Look, Hon- we've been friends a long time, so you know I will give it to you straight. One of the items I read recently concerning climate was the recent book on the fossil Ida, The Link. (Amazing book, btw. Everyone should check it out. Ida is incredible.) They discuss the climate of the earth back in the Eocene era. There were no ice caps at that time, and plate tectonics was still at work.

The reason the did all this back ground on climate was to establish how a primate could be found in Germany. The earth was much different. One of the factors contributing to a warmer earth at that time was the ocean currents. They were completely different due to the placement of the continents. One factor that radically altered earth's climate was the shifting plates, and India creating the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas. This also affected ocean currents, and we still haven't discussed things like meteorites.

Small changes can and do have an impact on climate in ways we can't be sure of, but we are sure that man's contributions to increased greenhouse gases will have an impact.

re: #164 Cato the Elder

Heh.

By the way, Pullus Julius was only partly correct when he claimed that doofus is of the fourth, not the second, declension.

That was true in pre-Classical Latin. For example, in the Twelve Tablets we find: "Qui pecuniam doofu subducit, sacer esto" ("cursed be he who steals from an idiot"). But later the noun is assimilated to the second conj., viz. Piny Ep. 6.89.7, "Opinio doofi neglegere sit" ("the notions of an idiot should be ignored").

Brought to you courtesy of the Ministry of Useless Information.

I never believed that boob for a second

re: #158 itellu3times

Let me add one more thing. The current AGW argument is a fossil.

The real AGW arguments were the virulent panic in the 1980s that involved hockey-stick predictions that the Earth would soon start on an irreversible heating that would raise average temperatures by - I dunno, ten, fifty, a hundred degrees, "like Venus" (which is hot enough to melt lead). Those arguments went away sometime in the late 1990s, I don't think even Gorebots spout them anymore. Now the arguments are about a couple of degrees celcius over centuries. MAYBE the coastlines will change a little, if that all pans out. But it does cause me more skepticism, when the previous panic has calmed itself by about 95% already.

That's Dr. Ian Plimers take on the subject, it's real, but it's not a problem.

re: #147 Walter L. Newton

re: #161 Thanos

Yeah that's clear - but the warming in modern times does not match expectations or modeling, and the greenhouse effect is also clear and well proven factor of warming.

Devils Advocate Time

When I was running my small business(s) I had business plans for 3 months, 6 months 1 year and 5 years

I was constantly (monthly) changinf the "expectations" and "models"

Meaning ,, I was WRONG. Could the modles and expectations on this be similarly wrong?

Again ,,, devils advocate

re: #150 Thanos

There were a very few financial people who saw the coming of the economic melt down even though they already knew MBS was a big problem.

The same might prove to be true of scientists and GW. Most of the break throughs I've read about in science have been made by a single person who thought differently from the general group think. In fact that's sort of the standard with science. Everyone thinks the same thing until someone else proves them wrong.

To me whether there is global warming or not is not the question. The real question is whether or what action is warranted. Even accepting all the science that we're warming and the humans are causing it - it still is not a call for cap and trade or any other government boondoggle. Even if we - the USA could stop ALL greenhouse gas emissions today - it wouldn't change a thing as China and India are not going to do a thing to stop their emissions.

re: #161 Thanos

And on what were the models you allude to based?

re: #172 sattv4u2

Devils Advocate Time

When I was running my small business(s) I had business plans for 3 months, 6 months 1 year and 5 years

I was constantly (monthly) changinf the "expectations" and "models"

Meaning ,, I was WRONG. Could the modles and expectations on this be similarly wrong?

Again ,,, devils advocate

It's possible that the current (and past) models are wrong, or in need of adjustment, but it doesn't matter.

re: #105 Racer X

I'm getting very close to agreeing with the "consensus" regarding GW. AGW is a bit behind that, but I hafta admit I'm getting there.

Where I absolutely DO NOT see consensus is what to do about global warming.

Then you and I are close to agreement. AGW appears to be real enough, but what the hell to do about it ? Spend trillions trying to save energy, or a moon shot type plan to go almost all nuke ?

re: #135 Thanos

Actually I read through most of his "talking points". Mine are not. His rebuttals are weak, and in many cases poorly phrased. He is trying to win a political argument, not a scientific argument.

As I noted there is no upside. That you go ad-hominem, compare my reasoning abilities to a 5 year old suggests strongly that you are not open to refutation. Your response further strengthens my argument that this is in fact a religion. Which means pointing out that the null hypothesis is not disambiguated from the "real" signal will be lost on you, as it was him. Since that is the fundamental core of the rebuttal against his talking points, and he did not respond to it in a meaningful manner, its fairly easy to discount arguments based upon the incorrect premise. Since the entire premise of AGW rests on something not testable ...

[think house of cards, falling down]

No one denies the climate has changed and is changing. What we dispute is the impact humans have had on it, considering that there were larger faster swings in the past. The paleo-climatology record has all these in there. More credible explanations that fit observed data have been discovered recently, and the talking points site author admits he hasn't looked into and considered them, even though they do in fact appear to correlate far better than AGW "data".

As I said, it is a religion. Ad-hominems sadly expected, and at least the first have been seen here.

Sad.

re: #174 acacia

exactly so why ruin our economy b/c of this Al Gore crap?

re: #162 Oh no...Sand People!

I don't agree with the politics of Kyoto or cap and trade either, so that's irrelevant to what we are discussing. Is the science provable? Too many on the right are saying no, which takes us out of serious consideration when discussing what we should or shouldn't do. IT's a stupid strategy to deny at the political level, and it's stupid to deny in the face of the ever increasing piles of evidence.

Our best stance on this is to oppose cap and trade through reason and by demonstrating that Cap and trade is too draconian for the degree or priority of the problem, that it doesn't work, and that it will enrich a few people at the expense of the economy. It will also likely cause a lot of people to starve.

You can't get to that debate it half the party are running about saying "there's no such thing as global warming!"

re: #115 kafir

AGW sadly, has more hallmarks of a religion than a science.

It could well be that every claim made by AGW proponents are true. The problem, it seems to me, is not so much that AGW resembles a religion as much as AGW proponents often resemble missionaries.
The other problem, of course, is that AGW opponents often resemble flat-earthers.
Myself, I fall in more readily with the opponents just because of the shrieking one-issue zealotry of the AGW crowd, and their dubious solutions, which always seem to go in the same "agrarian" direction.

I read somewhere that there are three salient questions on this:
Is the planet warming in a non-cyclical manner?
If so, is that caused by man?
If so, is there anything we can do about it?

I'll add a fourth, which is: If so, is it a good idea?

So far my answers are:
Maybe
Probably not
Almost certainly not
Not what I've heard so far.

re: #177 avanti

Then you and I are close to agreement. AGW appears to be real enough, but what the hell to do about it ? Spend trillions trying to save energy, or a moon shot type plan to go almost all nuke ?

do what obviously makes the most ethical and economic sense...invest in bananas

Another source of talking points for AGW skeptics can be found here:
10 Reasons to Doubt Global Warming is Man-Made. The author introduces himself thus:

I am a heretic in the new religion. I reject the Church of Global Warming and it’s High Priest Al Gore. This has resulted in more than one disciple telling me that I should, well, die. I can accept that.

re: #176 Walter L. Newton

It's possible that the current (and past) models are wrong, or in need of adjustment, but it doesn't matter.

It could relative to the scope of the mistake. Lets say the 'model" stated we'de increase temp by 1 degree. It comes out to be 5 degrees. a 4 degree difference
If the model was wrong and SHOULD have stated that we'd increase by 4 degrees and it actually increased to 5 (only a 1 degree diff.) then it would be inside of statistacal margein of error resulting in less hysteria

Again ,, DEVILS ADVOCATE

re: #177 avanti

Then you and I are close to agreement. AGW appears to be real enough, but what the hell to do about it ? Spend trillions trying to save energy, or a moon shot type plan to go almost all nuke ?

I, for one, believe in the ingenuity of man. We can be some brilliant types when we set out to do it. Technology may have attempted to put us here, but by the same token will allow us to conquer. I just want the 'conquerers' to be agenda free and doing this for a real purpose to help the actual people of the world and planet earth. We will find a way.

re: #7 Killgore Trout

Semi-OT: Banner ad at the top "Never buy electricity again"
Click and goes to a page with this video...

Never strain your brain to come up with a new scam when the old ones still sell like lemonade on an August day.

Speaking of which, I must go estivate in a cooler room. Back later.

Yes, but the Earth is flat, so what does it matter.

///

the real money? Carbon credit trading.

re: #178 kafir

As I said, it is a religion.

Just like Darwinism? And folks wonder why a similarity in tactics to the intelligent design movement is noticed by some of us.

re: #143 dwigg

Ok, any general consensus on what is the percentage of man-made CO2 produced each year versus natural emissions? Anyone interested in forming a "scientific group" to determine if peeing in the ocean will raise the sea level, call me at BR549.

That data is available with a goggle search. For example, volcano's contribute a tiny percentage compared to man.

Interesting thread. Something that baffles me , if humans are a major contributor to Global Warming, how come two other planes in our Solar System are warming? Serious question.

re: #172 sattv4u2

Devils Advocate Time

When I was running my small business(s) I had business plans for 3 months, 6 months 1 year and 5 years

I was constantly (monthly) changinf the "expectations" and "models"

Meaning ,, I was WRONG. Could the modles and expectations on this be similarly wrong?

Again ,,, devils advocate

No. That just demonstrates the inherent unsustainability of capitalism. Turn it over to Speaker Pelosi--she's always right.

re: #135 Thanos

Every one of your talking points is rebutted by the posts at the site, more data comes every day. If you are trying to say humans do not contribute some warming to the planet from our activities you are completely and provably wrong. A five year old can do it. So are you trying to say that in modern times we have not contributed to a warmer climate?

Having read portions of the site I can see that if you read carefully you'll find that the ambiguity of the data and conclusions is easily apparent. Sea level rise is measured in mms. Especially when dubious statistical methods are applied to a vast range of different data and assumptions are assigned to hard-to-interpret data such as boreholes. The authors admit that these conclusions are not that precise. What we know: the earth may be in a warming trend (very likely) in the last 1000 years, and human activity MAY be contributing to it. Even the sited articles aren't able to assign a value to that. One part openly admits that CO2 emissions can't be the sole cause of AGW (if it exists). Like a lot of things in science we can know some things very precisely and others just can't. Too bad blowhards like Al Gore and some anti-AGW fanatics had to pollute the waters with their idiocy.

re: #107 Sharmuta

Again, the answer is no. On average, TSI has remained essentially unchanged since 1978. According to the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, it hasn't increased (on average) in about 70 years.

But the sun doesn't only emit light.

A research paper
summarized here describes a different mechanism by which solar activity may indirectly affect cloud formation and thus climate.

re: #188 FrogMarch

the real money? Carbon credit trading.

Get this - it surprised me no end - you know who tried to really develop that market?

Enron

sheesh

re: #186 Cato the Elder

I must go estivate in a cooler room.

How dare you use $64 words like "esitivate", you pernicious popinjay.///

re: #41 Pianobuff

there is a high degree of common purpose between AGW supporters and energy independence supporters and is frustrated that the two camps can't just agree to do some "right things" even if they disagree on why they would be doing them.

THIS, a million times this.

I get so frustrated at the people (and yes, Virginia, they do exist) who seem to think that epic-scale industrial pollution is some sort of patriotic exercise of freedom.

I'm all for free-market capitalism, but it needs to be tempered by an ethical understanding of the consequences. You know, like, maybe it's not such a good idea to buy Chinese baby bibs made out of melamine and strontium-90 even though it's cheap; maybe not such a good idea to buy oil from theocratic dictatorships; maybe not such a good idea to let your local pig farm pump hydrogen sulfide into the ground and the atmosphere.

I am always amused by the people (and yes, Virginia, they do exist) who don't seem to notice that completely unregulated free-market capitalism is, by definition, social Darwinism.

re: #175 RebelDebater

THey were based on real world data, there are over twenty of them, and they are constantly tuned. In large forecasting you adjust by looking at your prediction, and what really happened. You see where the model was off, and then correct the factors or assumptions you input. That's what the climate modelers have been doing for 20+ years. They are getting better at it, even as large scale manpower scheduling programs iteratively get better. They are never perfect either but they are able to accurately predict how many people you will need to staff in September at call center x.

re: #188 FrogMarch

the real money? Carbon credit trading.

No- the real money is going to be in green energy. More of it will come, and those doing the work now will be rewarded sooner than those who trail behind.

re: #177 avanti

Then you and I are close to agreement. AGW appears to be real enough, but what the hell to do about it ? Spend trillions trying to save energy, or a moon shot type plan to go almost all nuke ?

I worked for the National Renewable Energy lab for 13 years, a DOE lab, financed by the federal government. The lab was started over 30 years ago by Jimmy Carter, under the name SERI (Solar Energy Research Institute).

There are over 700 scientist in this facility, working on everything from solar, to wind, to growing algae, and they have yet to come up with anything that is affordable and viable enough to put on the grid.

I'm not saying that there is never going to be a real breakthrough, but anyone, scientist or politician who tries to force this country into some currently unreachable goal is lying to you.

Nuke is the most (and possibly the only) current answer.

re: #179 RebelDebater

exactly so why ruin our economy b/c of this Al Gore crap?

Gore is just a cheerleader, and although he has publicized the issue, he has politicized it too.

re: #192 haakondahl

No. That just demonstrates the inherent unsustainability of capitalism. Turn it over to Speaker Pelosi--she's always right.

Actually, my downfall (small business wise) was Michael Dukakis doing his stint as governor of Massachusetts!!

re: #191 opnion

Interesting thread. Something that baffles me , if humans are a major contributor to Global Warming, how come two other planes in our Solar System are warming? Serious question.

George Bush's fault. Cheney's got some blame in their too.

re: #191 opnion

Interesting thread. Something that baffles me , if humans are a major contributor to Global Warming, how come two other planes in our Solar System are warming? Serious question.

The site linked says the evidence is dubious and it's probably just coincidence.

/you be the judge

re: #190 avanti

That data is available with a goggle search. For example, volcano's contribute a tiny percentage compared to man.

Um, you might want to look up the climate effects of Krakatoa's eruption (in the 1880s I believe)

just remember everything is cyclical, so as climate, IMHO

re: #180 Thanos

I don't agree with the politics of Kyoto or cap and trade either, so that's irrelevant to what we are discussing. Is the science provable? Too many on the right are saying no, which takes us out of serious consideration when discussing what we should or shouldn't do. IT's a stupid strategy to deny at the political level, and it's stupid to deny in the face of the ever increasing piles of evidence.

Our best stance on this is to oppose cap and trade through reason and by demonstrating that Cap and trade is too draconian for the degree or priority of the problem, that it doesn't work, and that it will enrich a few people at the expense of the economy. It will also likely cause a lot of people to starve.

You can't get to that debate it half the party are running about saying "there's no such thing as global warming!"

Completely agree. Something in the weather is going on. Since the Dems are the one's paying attention to it, whether we are to blame or not, we better start in a big hurry before the only solution to pop up is exactly what is popping up. We gotta get on our horses folks. Then if it comes that it was just a big 'oops sorry false alarm', I am all over the 'ounce of prevention' mindset. Works for me. I am even sure we could get some solid inventions to come of it and actual alternatives to help out humanity as opposed to the 'perpetual' energy types.

re: #206 Gella

just remember everything is cyclical, so as climate, IMHO

please see my #26

I'll be RICH I tell ya ,,, RICH !

re: #184 sattv4u2

It could relative to the scope of the mistake. Lets say the 'model" stated we'de increase temp by 1 degree. It comes out to be 5 degrees. a 4 degree difference
If the model was wrong and SHOULD have stated that we'd increase by 4 degrees and it actually increased to 5 (only a 1 degree diff.) then it would be inside of statistacal margein of error resulting in less hysteria

Again ,, DEVILS ADVOCATE

I wasn't being a devils advocate, and you evidently missed my sarcasm. It doesn't matter if the models are wrong, it doesn't matter if these predications are wrong, nothing matters. This has become a "religious" and political issue, and right and wrong has not bearing on the final outcomes.

I'm more worried about global pelosiization.

re: #207 Oh no...Sand People!

Completely agree. Something in the weather is going on. Since the Dems are the one's paying attention to it, whether we are to blame or not, we better start in a big hurry before the only solution to pop up is exactly what is popping up. We gotta get on our horses folks. Then if it comes that it was just a big 'oops sorry false alarm', I am all over the 'ounce of prevention' mindset. Works for me. I am even sure we could get some solid inventions to come of it and actual alternatives to help out humanity as opposed to the 'perpetual' energy types.

More state control over peoples lives, or less?

re: #203 JarHeadLifer

George Bush's fault. Cheney's got some blame in their too.

Mars is dust storms, google it. As has been stated over and over, the sun has not been a variable.

re: #198 Thanos

I highly doubt its possible to get an accurate model for data from 20 years much less 200 years.

re: #203 JarHeadLifer

George Bush's fault. Cheney's got some blame in their too.

Correct! Jennifer, tell the contestant what he's won.

re: #209 Walter L. Newton

I wasn't being a devils advocate, and you evidently missed my sarcasm. It doesn't matter if the models are wrong, it doesn't matter if these predications are wrong, nothing matters. This has become a "religious" and political issue, and right and wrong has not bearing on the final outcomes.

That I did Walter, and I'm ashamed!

re: #183 LeslieG

Like I'm going to trust a nirther on climate science?

re: #200 Walter L. Newton

I agree-- but the national NIMBY attitude makes it politically impossible--almost.

I've said it before-- I would dearly love to get off the oil teat is only to regain our sovereignty. Do not know what the answer is, but it has to be sold to the public that nukes are a short-term necessary "evil" until cold fusion, H3, or unicorn farts are capable of being harnessed.

re: #166 Thanos

Oh how I wish for the equivalent of a "block" list.

Thanos, you asked no questions. I pointed out that one of the commenters on the site did in fact devastate the entire fundamental scientific basis for AGW by asking how they could in fact measure either the null hypothesis or a signal. The site owner dithered and did not adequately answer that.

No strawmen were constructed, nor struck down in my post.

It may be something you believe in, so I am sorry if you feel I am attacking your belief system. As a science, it is left wanting. This is why so many of my fellow physicists have pointed this out, and why they are calling for the head of the editor-in-chief of one of the APS publications, over his comments that this is a "done deal". It is not, and demanding that it is, or constructing arguments like "knock the block off my shoulder, I dare you" do nothing to lend support to it.

AGW as a theory has problems, not the least of which, you can't measure the impact. Since the impact is in fact what the theory is saying is going to cause all manner of bad things going forward, and there is no way to measure it ...

This is why I try to stay away from arguing with creationists anymore as well. One showed up at a physics department I was at twenty years ago, and it unnerved me. I realized that when belief systems are questioned, people get bent out of shape. What they will do next, who knows.

AGW is the same way. Thank you for proving my point Thanos.

re: #199 Sharmuta

No- the real money is going to be in green energy. More of it will come, and those doing the work now will be rewarded sooner than those who trail behind.

If there was big money in re-renewable energy - we would be doing it already. The problem with re-renewable is large scale infrastructure.

Carbon credits = big money

re: #208 sattv4u2

please see my #26

I'll be RICH I tell ya ,,, RICH !

LOL, thats not what i meant :) history repeats itself

re: #201 avanti

Him of the house that sucks more electricity than Wichita Falls?

And in other related news, this past July was the coldest on record in:

Grand Rapids Michigan

Huntington West Virginia

Fort Wayne Indiana

International Falls Minnesota

and Dubuque Iowa.

Seattle had a couple days that were the hottest recorded, but they also place their surface station next to an airport runway.

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

re: #220 FrogMarch

If there was big money in re-renewable energy - we would be doing it already. The problem with re-renewable is large scale infrastructure.

Carbon credits = big money

oops - link:
ttp[Link: www.businessweek.com...]

re: #174 acacia

To me whether there is global warming or not is not the question. The real question is whether or what action is warranted. Even accepting all the science that we're warming and the humans are causing it - it still is not a call for cap and trade or any other government boondoggle. Even if we - the USA could stop ALL greenhouse gas emissions today - it wouldn't change a thing as China and India are not going to do a thing to stop their emissions.

I have my own rebuttal to Kyoto, which accomplishes nothing more than exporting jobs to China and India, while giving them a license to pollute.
If Japan produces one unit of environmental impact for every unit of productivity, then on that scale, America produces two units of impact per unit of production, and China, SEVEN.
Clearly, the solution is to bomb factories in China, which, as the economic substitution principle (theory?) operates, will clen up the environment considerably with minimal disruption to supply, as cleaner, unbombed factories expand to meet demand.
I'd like to see the environmentalists tell me why this "Modest Proposal" is less a good idea than the wanton destruction of productivity and economic performance contained within the Kyoto Protocol.

re: #221 Gella

LOL, thats not what i meant :) history repeats itself

wha ,,, spring summer fall and winter aren't annual occurences !?!?!?!?!

re: #213 RebelDebater

I highly doubt its possible to get an accurate model for data from 20 years much less 200 years.

Do your homework, they can get data for 100's if not 1000's of years. It's in ice cores, coral growth, tree rings and more.

as i am sitting home today, in Greater Chicagoland, i realize i don't want to leave my house today, global warming day today, 95F
///

re: #219 BigFire

ruh roh ,,, sumfin tells me that BigFire is about to meet a hose !

re: #181 haakondahl

Agreed. As a (ex-)scientist, I have to say that AGW "could" be true, and far far more work needs to be done to figure out a way to disambiguate the signals from the background. But as you said, it feels like a religion ... or a political cause. And that muddies everything up, does a disservice to the scientists working on it, causing them to have to gauge political winds in order to get funding.

Been there, done that. It sucks.

re: #227 avanti

Do your homework, they can get data for 100's if not 1000's of years. It's in ice cores, coral growth, tree rings and more.

ya that too :)

re: #204 itellu3times

The site linked says the evidence is dubious and it's probably just coincidence.

/you be the judge

Very difficult to know. Like most people, I believe that we have to respect & protect the Planet that we live on. I just don't want to see more jobs lost pursuing a 'Green" agenda.
To me Nuclear power makes sense. It is clean, renewable & relatively inexpensive.

re: #218 kafir

Um, are you married?

Uh. No. Wait.

I am (quite happily, too!)

:D

Two points only. First, a rebuttal to a rebuttal in this list. Second, well...
1) The "Greenland" and "Vineland" arguments stating the names were just sales pitches to get people to move there. Fine. It's only regional, hence anecdotal, you say, fine. But there is no rebuttal to (or mention of) the fact that since the mid 1990s the receding glaciers in Greenland have been giving up farms they covered some 500 years ago. Still giving them up. Still not back to where they were 500 years ago. Mmmm?

2) Never does this cheat sheet mention: The "science" (eg models) consistently predict the greatest increases in temperature to take place in the upper troposphere. Think of it as the "roof of the greenhouse". Not happening. So not happening that in 2007 a study of wind patterns in the upper troposphere was published to show that those wind patterns could only occur due to increased temperatures. Oops, it was a computer model, not a study. A computer model developed to rebut the more than fifty years of high altitude weather balloon temperature readings - which consistently show no increases in the upper troposphere temperatures at variance with surface temperature increases. Yes, the temp up there is going up - but not consistently with any of the models' projections. So the actual readings get thrown out in favor another model showing the temps are going up "the way they should".

Truly makes me wonder whether the science of AGW is more akin to the science that used to state "of course heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones" - until a man named Gallileo decided science should maybe be based on measurements, not assumptions.

re: #223 dalejrfanfreak

And in other related news, this past July was the coldest on record in:

Grand Rapids Michigan

Huntington West Virginia

Fort Wayne Indiana

International Falls Minnesota

and Dubuque Iowa.

Seattle had a couple days that were the hottest recorded, but they also place their surface station next to an airport runway.

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

There is also an El Nino condition building in the Pacific-- that might have something to do with it. National Hurricane Service also downgraded the season to having fewer storms. I'm hoping for a very wet winter here in SoCal.

re: #18 Killgore Trout

Some of you might be interested in this...
Republicans for Environmental Protection

They have a recent article post on global warming...
Absolutely Amazing Distortions Related to Global Warming
It's worth looking in to.

I've been saying it for years. The R's need to show they care about the environment.

re: #213 RebelDebater

You can doubt all you want but models can tell you whether you need to hire more people or close some call centers. The factors in manpower planning and economic modeling are as complex as climate modeling, and they generally get long term trends correct.

re: #229 sattv4u2

ruh roh ,,, sumfin tells me that BigFire is about to meet a hose !

as in an enema?

re: #194 Sommerfeld

I don't believe any climatologist would deny the sun, volcanoes, ocean currents, and other natural factors contribute to climate change. The issue is man's impact on climate. Since the issue is hotly debated, naturally it has been necessary to show these other factors are not the cause of the recent warming. This is not due to the wobble of our axis. This isn't due to TSI. This isn't due to a radical shift in ocean currents.

But you miss the point. Even if these things were contributing to climate change, it wouldn't change the atmospheric changes we are contributing.

re: #220 FrogMarch

If there was big money in re-renewable energy - we would be doing it already. The problem with re-renewable is large scale infrastructure.

Carbon credits = big money

Renewable - spell check issue - sorry.

re: #211 Syrah

More state control over peoples lives, or less?

And that is the biggest frustration I have. Somehow, somewhere, we the people accepted some sort of marketing technique that as any new problem arises only a 'bigger gov't' can save us when that is patently wrong. Now I do believe in a hint of regulation on companies that are full on environment predators and are making the quick buck at the expense of the land etc.

But the private sector, when allowed, will overcome and the people that do it will be rewarded accordingly...and should be.

re: #238 calcajun

as in an enema?

eeewww,, no ,, as in put the BigFire OUT!

re: #236 FrogMarch

I've been saying it for years. The R's need to show they care about the environment.

like burning out old, dead tinder around the LA hills?

re: #197 negativ

... completely unregulated free-market capitalism is, by definition, social Darwinism.

Well there's a term unfreighted with hotly debated subjective meanings.

Aloha Lizards! Been away on a capitalist pig orgy trying to make money and jonesing for some LGF.

Can I get my AGW 'freak on' now?

re: #177 avanti

Then you and I are close to agreement. AGW appears to be real enough, but what the hell to do about it ? Spend trillions trying to save energy, or a moon shot type plan to go almost all nuke ?

Man that makes a ton of sense - especially if AGW is as bad as they say. We need to go all nuke right now if we want even a slim chance of reversing GW.

re: #223 dalejrfanfreak

And in other related news, this past July was the coldest on record in:

Grand Rapids Michigan

Huntington West Virginia

Fort Wayne Indiana

International Falls Minnesota

and Dubuque Iowa.

Seattle had a couple days that were the hottest recorded, but they also place their surface station next to an airport runway.

[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

It's been hotter than average here in AZ this summer. We had a great June, but we've been paying for it since. When your low is 98, you know it's going to be a bad day.

re: #246 Racer X

Man that makes a ton of sense - especially if AGW is as bad as they say. We need to go all nuke right now if we want even a slim chance of reversing GW.

seems to prove the left is hardly serious about one of their pet issues

re: #189 Sharmuta

Ugh. Rathole detected. Will try not to get sucked in.

"Darwinism" isnt a religion. It is a testable hypothesis. You can stick evolution in a lab and observe it. You can refute it by finding real counterexamples, and showing that a different process is at work. That it has survived with minor changes over 150 years is a pretty good testament to how successful it is as a theory.

Creationism is a religion. You cannot test it, because in testing it, you could refute it. If you refute it, you are refuting a religion.

You really don't want to go there.

re: #227 avanti

Do your homework, they can get data for 100's if not 1000's of years. It's in ice cores, coral growth, tree rings and more.

Avanti, you do know that a little of 30 years ago, both Time & Newsweek had cover stories about Global "Cooling."
They cited scientists & data predicting a new Ice Age.
The cause ? Ta DA! Humans

re: #234 tubbyhubby

re Greenland:

...new research suggests that the dominant cause of the Greenland glaciation was the fall from high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to levels closer to that of pre-industrial times. Today concentrations are approaching the levels that existed while Greenland was mostly ice-free.
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]

re: #228 Gella

as i am sitting home today, in Greater Chicagoland, i realize i don't want to leave my house today, global warming day today, 95F
///

Hello neighbor. Humidity is high also. Stay cool.

re: #233 wahabicorridor

Yup, happily married. 18 years last week.

hubby's home gotta hop

re: #185 Oh no...Sand People!

I, for one, believe in the ingenuity of man. .

But I believe in the disingenuity of man.