The climate war is lost

The climate war is lost and the proposed pan-civilizational ‘surge’ against anthropogenic global warming will fail. We should pull out all of our (scientific) troops now.

Why is the Climate War doomed to fail, you ask? Answer: It's a war based on lies. And poorly planned to boot.

I can't help but think that this sounds awefully familiar.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday. "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists. ~breitbart.com

Sadly, Democrats have no shame and no moral aversion to defeating America. Which is coincidentally why the Climate Surge will fail as well.

But how can I say that we've already lost the climate war and should just surrender? Well, as Harry Reid puts it, we will just fail in the end so why bother? Continuing to fight the climate war will just increase the casualties.

But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.

"Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam," Reid said. ~breitbart.com


The climate war: a war based on lies

Bad intelligence, flawed assumptions, cherry-picking climate data, and an enviro-religious-ideological bent has led to the perfect storm of lies, damn lies and statistics.

As I have previously pointed out, the Global Warming War-Mongers refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts their rush to war. Previous scientific facts have conveniently been 'revised' into non-existence. It is now heresy to even mention the Medieval Warming Period. Heresy is heresy after all.

The unprecedented historical record:

Propaganda is a wonderful thing. Even when it's in the service of the global warming religion. But what happens when the propaganda gimmick is exposed? Do the 'consensus' scientists apologize or do they ignore it?

Last year [2006] was the warmest in the continental United States in the past 112 years -- capping a nine-year warming streak "unprecedented in the historical record" that was driven in part by the burning of fossil fuels, the government reported yesterday.

..."People should be concerned about what we are doing to the climate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in greenhouse gases, and there's a broad scientific consensus that is producing climate change." ~washingtonpost.com


When the 'hottest year on record' is trumpeted from the housetops as being 2006, and this 'fact' is held out as proof, they say, that global warming is real and happening now, but then when the data is found to be faulty and 1934 apparently is the hottest year of the century they whisper the correction on the back pages and say it makes no difference-- this is how we know that those who push the global warming agenda will make the facts fit their agenda everytime, regardless of the data.

It should also give one pause to review the actual condition and environment around our nation's weather stations (not to mention Europe's) and wonder how corrupted the original climate data is even before they try to manipulate it.

But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they're cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it's being operated properly.

To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts' site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it's on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it's next to a drum where trash is burned.

Watts, who says he's a man of facts and science, isn't jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he's finding raises doubts about NOAA's past and current temperature reports. ~pittsburghlive.com


The fact that these climate scientists refuse to disclose and make available the algorithms and software they use to model climate data and make their predictions (and pronouncements of doom) is evidence that they are in fact skewing the data to fit their end result.

We are told by the 'consensus' that capitalism and industry are responsible for global warming to a 99.9% certainty. And yet they are 100% wrong about their primary propaganda tool, "the hottest year on record." What other hidden facts used to force 'total consensus' are wrong?

Additional reading:

Posted by Eric Simonson at August 13, 2007 1:25 AM
Comments
Comment #229173

Eric,
Unless you intended to intentionally mislead people, you might want to retract this article and rewrite it. You are passing on misinformation that a minor adjust in US temperatures means Global Warming is not happening:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

And…

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

The original source of this misinformation was a blogger, Instapundit, who sloppily confused US info on temperatures with global temperatures. This, in turn, was repeated by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and others.

Allow me to spell it out. Temperatures for the US are not the same as temperatures for the planet.

As Ralph Wiggams would say:

“I’m ben-barrassed for you.”

“An F in English? That”s unpossible!”

Posted by: phx8 at August 13, 2007 2:04 AM
Comment #229177

Eric, WOW! Talk about 9 degrees of separation. Look, where there is a political will, there is a way. Get it? There is no political will amongst the Iraqis for the kind of solution WE could call victory. On the other hand, governments around the globe recognize the threat to their own power that global climate change portends, hence, a growing political will is underway to act to minimize the human contribution to global climate change.

But, you probably don’t want to hear it. That’s OK. Other’s like to know they aren’t alone in their ability to think this through clearly.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 2:41 AM
Comment #229182

The preponderance of the evidence points to global warming and human contribution to it. Nothing is ever certain, but the evidence is strong.

I agree that the climate war is lost, if you mean warming. There is enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the air today to make warming inevitable. Nothing we can do now will stop some warming. We can now adapt to the warmer world and reduce emissions so that it will not get much worse.

I do not think there are grounds for panic, however. Global warming will not mean the end of life. The globe has been much warmer than it is today and life thrived in places that are now barren. We had temperate forests above the artic circle, for example. The problem is the transition. Our cultures and economies are based on the CURRENT environment. We do not know if a warmer earth will end up creating an environment richer in life, but we know that the adjustment will be very difficult. So what do we do?

Fortunately we have a strategy that works in a variety of scenarios: a carbon tax. A carbon tax is elegant because it goes after the thing we want to reduce; it can use existing systems and bureaucracy; it charges people in relation to their carbon use, so it influences their behavior and it can be enacted by a single country w/o resort to cumbersome international agreements (where everyone has incentive to cheat).

In addition, a carbon tax will give a defacto boost to alternatives, help reduce our dependence on oil from volatile countries and discourage many forms of ordinary (none global warming) pollution.

There no serious downsides to a carbon tax, properly applied. It could even be revenue neutral, with carbon tax revenues used to offset other taxes.

It is not possible to be against a carbon tax and at the same time concerned about global warming, although some who prefer to keep the global warming issue as a political ploy do oppose it, precisely because it will work while leaving intact the free market system that has made us so prosperous, but that some people on the left abhor.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2007 8:00 AM
Comment #229185

Good God, man, do you folks even research your claims? This is why I think the Conservative blogosphere is generally full of it: The big difference is that in the United States (we’re not even talking global), the average temperature for 1998 has gone from .01 degrees ahead of 1934’s, to .02 ahead. Like the guy on the site says, from a virtual tie to a virtual tie!

And as real climate puts it:

More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here).

I think he nails what’s going on here:

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake.

Science isn’t science, if you’re unwilling to correct incorrect data. The data in this case still says the same thing. The Contrarians have made a distinction without a difference. At the end of the day, they want Global Warming theory to be wrong. But what you want to be true is irrelevant in science, as is what you believe. The data supports anthropogenic global warming via CO2 emissions better than any other explanation. If we find out different, scientific methods will demand a change in theory. It hasn’t yet.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2007 8:33 AM
Comment #229189

Jack,

I don’t know why you are so eager to bash your natural allies on the left. Few conservatives are ever going to sign on to your carbon tax. Try starting with Eric! Anyone else want popcorn? This should be fun.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 13, 2007 9:23 AM
Comment #229191

Eric,

Even if the theory of global warming ends up being just plain wrong, what would the downside to taking action be?

Cleaner air?

Reduced reliance on foreign oil?

Ooooooooooh, I’m scared! I don’t know if I can handle cleaner air…………

Posted by: KansasDem at August 13, 2007 10:18 AM
Comment #229195
Eric, Unless you intended to intentionally mislead people,

Wow. If I’d never seen unbridled optimism in the face of contrary experience on WB, I sure have now.

However Eric, if you aren’t interested in completely misleading people in order to promote your own agenda, please let us know. I’m sure we could come up with a list of articles that you could offer to retract.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #229196

Here we go again, when the “man’s causing” global warming “alarmists” are presented with facts; they freak out and (actually) “deny” (ironically) and scoff at the changes in temperature. What is the big deal about (this) incorrect data?! Well, one of the central tenants of the global warming “religious fanatics” is that 1998 was the hottest year in history on record. Now we know that 1998 was not the hottest year on record, it was 1934. Also, five of the top ten warmest years on record are in the 30s. This is a big deal people.


Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 10:35 AM
Comment #229197

No, rahdigly. You have it backwards (again). The only people freaking out here are those that want to deny the facts and evidence on the ground. They are the ones that are turning a tiny discrepancy that doesn’t affect the overall trends and conclusions into something it really isn’t.

That a few readings in one part of the world were wrong doesn’t mean that the 99% of other readings around the world are suddenly invalid.

Good try, but once again you are starting with a conclusion and ignoring evidence and understanding and knowledge you don’t like. It doesn’t work.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 10:41 AM
Comment #229209

To all who believe in anthropogenic global warming. A couple simple questions.

What is the definition of the term “Global Average Temperature?” Please provide the definition in English and mathematically terms.

What is the definition of the term “Global Warming?” Again, please provide the definition in English and mathematically terms.

Here is some Extra Credit: What are the assumption implicit in either definition? Do all of the simulations used to predict the future climate us the same assumptions?

Posted by: David at August 13, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #229211

There is more truth in the climate war, then there was to get us into the Iraq war. Does a surge work, Johnson found out no it doesn’t, the same as Bush will.

Posted by: KT at August 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #229212

Global Warming has been the rallying call for the past 15 to 20 years. Now we find out the hottest year is 70 plus years ago; big difference considering the environmental “alarmists” (in the 70’s) were saying that we were supposed to have an Ice Age. There is a (big) problem with the science (and scientists) when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may have known about it and doesn’t correct the data. There is an agenda there, James Hansen is a political activist; yet, none of the “alarmists” are concerned about that?! This data (or incorrect data) is being used to promote this global warming hoax; for example, look at this ABC News story:
“A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.”

Uh, wrongo! See how this misinformation is used to promote the hoax?!! It is a big deal people!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 12:27 PM
Comment #229213

Eric,

Your comments are a good representative of what we’ve been hearing from Republicans over the last 6 years. Democrats and scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to dupe Americans, and the problem doesn’t matter anyway. It’s a joke.


Jack,

We get it. A carbon tax is a good idea, but it’s not a panacea to what many of us consider to be the real threat facing our country. Republicans in general are hurting this country and making it less secure by refusing to acknowledge the severity of the threat.

Posted by: Max at August 13, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #229214
Uh, wrongo! See how this misinformation is used to promote the hoax?!! It is a big deal people!

OMG!!! A sound bite that was used as an introduction to enormous amounts of sound science can’t be used anymore! It’s almost like the sound science disappeared!!! Please ignore the fact that it didn’t and focus on the sound bite!!!

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #229215

KansasDem -
“Even if the theory of global warming ends up being just plain wrong, what would the downside to taking action be?”

The result may be (or may not be) cleaner air or reduced reliance on foreign oil. However, it should be clear to everyone that it certainly will mean higher prices, fewer jobs and a less stable U.S. economy (and perhaps world economy) Meanwhile, those countries which do not care (most 3rd world countries) will do nothing at all to eliminate pollutants or reduce populations. World population growth will negate all the benefit we would have seen from reduced emissions and improved technology. Net result = ZERO. Net cost = TRILLIONS. So, you will lose twice, air will not be cleaner, and you will pay the cost. You will die from polluted air and heat realizing that the war was lost because you did not reduce the world population.
IF global warming is true, any plan to solve it that does not include strategies to reduce world population is a waste of time and money. If global warming is false, all strategies are a waste of time and money. So, go ahead and get your worthless light bulbs and Hondas. I’ll just try to save my money for what really matters…pizza.

Posted by: Don at August 13, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #229217
There is no political will amongst the Iraqis for the kind of solution WE could call victory. On the other hand, governments around the globe recognize the threat to their own power that global climate change portends, hence, a growing political will is underway to act to minimize the human contribution to global climate change.


This so-called “political will” it is yet another way for government, or in this case governments, to tax us and intrude in our lives; you damn right they are “willing”!!

Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #229219

Eric
And just where was the moon landing staged?


Don
Jobs are all ready being created in alternat energy production.

Third world countries ,contrary to your statement, are moving more quickly than we are toward alternate production. The Philippines,for example, is exporting solar panels and planting bio-diesel source crops,increasing alcohol production etc. Really the only way for us to lose jobs is to keep being blissfully in denial of the needed changes.
We do agree on some points. Beer,pizza and pool made America free,lets fight to keep all three.

Posted by: BillS at August 13, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #229224

David,
For answers to your questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The wikipedia article gives a good, brief, easily readable description of the issue in general terms. It includes a section on climate models, and also has additional links if you want to go into more detail.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment offers a wealth of information.

LawnBoy,
You are right, I should not be surprised when an article obviously, grossly misrepresents an issue. Why would anyone confuse the temperature record for the US with temperature record for the world? Once aware of theinaccuracy, why would they not correct it? Never mind, I can answer my own question.

Posted by: phx8 at August 13, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #229225

David-
Global, as in concerning the temperatures of the whole world. Average, as in taking them in sum and then dividing by the number of points of data, or something mathematically along those lines

Global warming is simply the rise in that average temperature.

The real question you should ask yourself is why it’s happening, because this rise in temperature has been very real, and has occured in basically the ways you would expect if it were caused by an anthropogenically caused rise in CO2.

Rahdigly-
The geographical scope and magnitude of the corrections is not that great, as the facts above have already demonstrated.

Your claim about global cooling is bunk. People were considering things, but there was far more uncertainty in the science then, as compared to now. Computer models are more advanced and accurate, oceanographic components better measured and understood, and climate feedbacks understood in greater detail. Your approach is to say “never mind the facts and the scientific method, they have to get it right the first time, or we can’t trust a thing they say”. Which is bunk. They were considering alternative hypotheses, among which global cooling was one. They refined the science and the models, and as they have done that, they’ve answered many of the questions and objections. Meanwhile, you guys support things like the Cosmic Ray Cloud Hypothesis, which are nowhere near being properly observed, much less verified as an alternative cause. I think you have your fixed ideas of what is true, and you arrange the facts and theories you find around that to prove your point.

As for the temperature guages, ask yourself this: if it’s all a matter of improperly placed guages and thermometers, why are are temperature guages aboard buoys and ships at see registering the same basic changes to Earth’s temperature?

Don-
The consequences of not attending to global warming are calculated to be about 20 times greater than the costs of dealing with it, in no small part because of third world growth.

Populations going to increase, no doubt, but what’s the point of doing nothing if global warming is, as the data (even this new corrected data) suggests, real? It’s suicide, a needlessly self-inflicted wound.

Many third world countries do care. They don’t want to fall behind. If we do not lead the charge, though, our example strengthens the claims of critics who say that this is just the big economic powers trying to tighten the belts of others while they add new notches to their own.

Reduction in populations simply aren’t going to happen, but as people become more prosperous, they have fewer children. Finding a way to make cleaner technology is a worthy goal, the pessimism of complacent individuals aside.

It’s worth noting that we use far more energy than anybody else out there. It would do us and the world some good to cut back. To simply complain about others, who are not such profligate energy users, seems rather immature to me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2007 1:48 PM
Comment #229231

rahdigly, pick up a probability & statistics 101 book. Near the front it will relate to you that a single incident in scatter plot of many incidences does not a trend make. But, many incidences along a centered rising slope, does a trend make.

Temps fluctuate from year to year during glaciation or warming. It is the averaged trend over time that is significant.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #229234

Whether you believe in global warming or not should not be the deciding factor when choosing to support changing the way pollutants are handled in the world today. If a push towards conservation and reduced use of raw materials as a result of a global warming scare causes Wal-Mart to hire people to evaluate all of their packaging, which it has, so be it. IT’S GOOD BUSINESS. People who claim use of alternate energies and increased funding of scientific research will hurt the economy are kidding themselves. Sure, a shift of focus in the market will create turbulence, change always has, but the value created in new jobs and infrastructure will create piles of value. We all know pollution creates disease and shortens the life expectancy of those exposed. The government has probably considered this and should take a second look at the addition in tax potential from each person in cities were they all exposed to fewer hazardous materials. Monetary consequences, when analyzed from the viewpoint of one who only considers investments and existing markets is not taking the time to evaluate the financial shift a large movement of the populace can generate. Change requires money. Last time I checked the spending of money is what makes capitalism thrive. Instead of worrying about your current portfolio and that of the country, learn to adapt to new monetary climate the climate change push will create. When dependency is reduced oil and coal companies are given the same choice we are: to adapt or die. This is what creates innovation.

Posted by: Alastor's Heaven at August 13, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #229242

I take it some of you didn’t see the Watts Up With That article where they (actually) had pictures of where some of these temperature thermometers were placed; some were next to central-air units. The “bloggers” had to say something about it; not NASA. Who knows how long NASA knew (if they did) about this error?! Why did it take a blogger to discover this error?!! That would be a pretty valid inquiry, don’t you think?!!! Then, you have this ABC News story: where they are using this (incorrect) data. This is (just one of the reasons) why the incorrect data and these news stories are a big deal. Yet, some of you don’t want to hear that…

Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #229245

Why does anyone still respond to Eric’s rants on global warming? It’ the same old grasping at straws to prove his emotional and wrong view of what the vast majority of scientists are telling us.

It’ not worth the CO2.

Posted by: chris2x at August 13, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #229252

I’m not sure what Eric’s link to “increase the casualties” is supposed to mean. Having fewer children somehow means casualties? Is this an anti-abortion rant or something?

Actually, I heard an interview with an author on the radio yesterday say something that took me aback. Basically, if every woman had on average only one child, world population would fall precipitously down to around 1.5 billion people by the end of the century. Although, more difficult to achieve than it sounds, we may already be heading for a large population implosion once we reach 9 billion people around 2050. We are going to have to figure out how our ecomomies are going to adjust to this even sooner in western countries where population growth is only maintained by immigration.

I’d love to see a well-researched watchblog entry on what population implosion would mean for the environment and our economy from someone with the time or interest.

Posted by: chris2x at August 13, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #229253

Chris2x,
I know, I know. This messed up story, in which a right wing blogger mixed up temperature records for the US with temperature records for the world, was amplified with all its inaccuracies by Limbaugh, Malkin, and… here.

Rahdigly,
Correcting inaccuracies, making sure information is valid, and pointing out problems with any sources is a good thing. The problem with collecting data in an urban heat sink has been acknowledged for a long time, and attempts are made to account for the bias. The Forest Grove OR & the Marysville CA stations may need to be fixed. Whatever. There is a huge- and I mean huge- body of data on temperatures, and possible problems with a handful of stations is unlikely to affect the overall outcome.

Correcting data for a climate model is a small matter, especially when the correction involves only 3% of the landmass, with a correction of .15C

Posted by: phx8 at August 13, 2007 3:31 PM
Comment #229254

rahdigly, but, you are missing the forest for the trees. The Arctic is being fought over DUE to the melting opening the Arctic up for drilling. The warming is threatening polar bears which some predict will have to be put on the endangered species list in the next decade if the keep being found drowned, unable to reach an ice sheet or land. That is pretty monumental evidence of warming over time. A very short time in fact, several decades only.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #229257

Chris2x, there is a school of thought in economics that states constant economic and demographic growth would lead to calamity. They offer instead a model for stable economies and stable population, in which a balance of trade and skills with consumption is achieved on a macro level over time. Of course it would fluctuate from year to year, but, that is the point of their theory, to offer an alternative to insure fluctuations don’t become long term trends.

As the world’s population moves toward techo/industrialized employment, stable economic theory becomes plausible. It hasn’t been a plausible theory where such disparity of wealth and the split between non-industrialized agricultural and industrialized/techno nations resulted in massive deprivation and population migrations caused by war, exploitation (blood diamonds), and autocratic regimes of families hording national wealth as in Saudi Arabia or Syria or pre-invasion Iraq. These disparities meant fair and equally distributed consumption and labor could not be shared between nations.

But, as autocratic regimes move ever onward toward the mixed economy model of social conscience policy (to avoid revolution and civil war) and entrepreneurial private enterprise, such as is occurring in places like the U.A.E and China and Phillipines, the balance model based on zero population growth or even global population decrease can be accommodated by international reciprocal distribution of industrial technological jobs and consumption which does not require constant growth to stay economically afloat.

Friedman alluded to this model for the future in his book, The World is Flat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 3:48 PM
Comment #229258

So, some of you agree with the inaccuracies; yet, no mention how the news article (just recently, by the way) is using the wrong data (1998 is the hottest year when it is indeed not!). Why would anyone allow that story to run and why don’t some of you say something about it? If it were the other side, say an inaccuracy from the deniers, many of you would be all over; yet, nothing about this inaccuracy. Nothing about an agenda from James Hansen, who is a political activist. Nothing about why a blogger had to spot this and not NASA.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #229260

rah,

Wow. A news article got something wrong, surprising everyone in the world. There, I mentioned it.

So a blogger found it instead of a specific scientific group? So what? That’s often how science works - someone outside the mainstream discovers a problem or a new piece of evidence, and then the scientific community examines it. Upon examination, experts decide whether the new information is accurate, and then adjust their understanding based on the new information.

In this case, the adjustment is along the lines of “well, that makes a statistically-insignificant change in the recent results. We’ll update our numbers, but the mistake was in a tiny percentage of the inputs and doesn’t affect the overall trends or conclusions”.

Can we move on to the scientific data? Or will you continue to ignore the forest?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #229265

Thanks David,

The world is going to have to likely deal with population decline sometime this century. I know this can cause all kinds of problems in the economy in the interim from reduced consumption to a greying populace. However, economies must adapt at some point. The alternative would seem to be a disastrous crash and population and economic growth starting over again along the same model. The environment would seem to mostly benefit from less people. Do economies really need more people to grow at the macro level?

Posted by: chris2x at August 13, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #229266

Stephen, I’m not about to suggest that the bad data invalidates that we are on a warming trend, so let’s throw that out. But, don’t you think, it sort of invalidates the statement that 1998 was the hottest year on record when it is probably that 1934 was?

BTW, I find it interesting 1930-1940 was a very temultuous time in our weather history, the Dust Bowl, damaging hurricanes, most of our high temp records were during this time. I also am curious as to why and how it fits in with everything.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #229267

Rahdigly,

“In the global mean, 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.”
www.realclimate.org

You seem to keep confusing US temperature records with worldwide temperature records, which is merely repeating the mistake made by ES, Limbaugh, Instapundit, and so on.

Posted by: phx8 at August 13, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #229269


Don: Thirty years ago or so when the air was foul and the rivers were so poluted that seme would actually burn, many in the business community opposed doing anything about it. They claimed that the cleanup would be to costly to business, the economy would be destabilized and many jobs would be lost.

The air and the water are cleaner now, the economy wasn’t derailed and many thousands of jobs were created both in the private and public sectors. The same is occuring now as we are begining to accelerate our move to clean alternative sources of energy.

If in 25 or 30 years science discovers that global warming isn’t happening, I doubt that many will want to go back to the good old days of oil dependency and oil wars.

Posted by: jlw at August 13, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #229275

If Global Warming is such an absolute truth rather than some imagined “inconvenient truth”, why does Al Gore refuse to debate anyone with a differing opinion, instead casting them as liars and deny-ers?

JD

Posted by: JD at August 13, 2007 8:05 PM
Comment #229278

Hey, all you “forest through the trees” wiseguys; I have said now (three comments) that the inaccuracy in the hottest year, along with the fact that a blogger (not NASA) spotted it, and the ABC News story that (recently) used this (incorrect) piece of data to justify this (man-made) global warming scare tactic is a big deal. I (also) stated that if this had been an inaccuracy from the deniers, many of you would have been all over the story and the scientists that messed up. Yet, only one blogger responded to it after three (consecutive) comments; though, I should point out, in a back-handed, smart-aleck way. Nice. This is not just one article; it is just a small sample of the disingenuous, scare tactics of the “man-made” global warming (religious) fanatics.


Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 8:35 PM
Comment #229280

Stephen D -
“To simply complain about others, who are not such profligate energy users, seems rather immature to me.”

You may use a great deal of energy, I don’t know, but even you know that all uses of energy yield the same pollution and/or emissions of CO2. Energy use in the U.S. is quite efficient compared to that of third-world countries. We produce some of the cleanest energy per unit in the world. The savings to the environment caused by reduction of energy usage, improved technology and American ingenuity would, no doubt, be staggering… if it weren’t for the ever increasing world population. When you factor in the costs of all this “do-gooding” you find that we cannot win this war. That’s the point! Doing something is worthless if it does not solve the problem (That’s the problem with Democrats, they equate “caring” with actually “accomplishing”. I, having matured, think “solutions” are more important than “caring.”)

“If we do not lead the charge, though, our example strengthens the claims of critics who say that this is just the big economic powers trying to tighten the belts of others while they add new notches to their own.”

You claim that we (the U.S.) must lead the world. And you claim that the world will follow our example. WHEN HAS THIS EVER HAPPENED?


jlw -
“If in 25 or 30 years science discovers that global warming isn’t happening, I doubt that many will want to go back to the good old days of oil dependency and oil wars.”

First, your statement is pure conjecture.
Second, the environment was cleaned up and remains cleaner than it was many moons ago. Driving down the roads you see Owls and Hawks, which weren’t there when I was young. There were many good things which came from that clean-up.
However, nothing much of value can come from this push because this is a WORLD-WIDE problem. Only WORLD-WIDE changes can solve this one.

Since “people” are the “cause” of global warming, only the reduction of ALL the “people” in the world along with the reduction of “warming-causing activities” by ALL the people in the world can solve it. The U.S. and industrialized countries alone CANNOT solve it.

Posted by: Don at August 13, 2007 8:45 PM
Comment #229281

Rahdigly-
If both an urban temperature reading and one taken out at sea show the same trends, does it not follow that the heat island effect is not the cause of that trend, since there wouldn’t be such an effect on the high seas?

As for the ABC article, note what they say: both kind of variability, natural and human are at work. they expect one to dominate for the next ten years, the other to dominate over the century. Of course you claim the scientist are saying that it’s 100% human, which is not at all what global warming adherents, even James Hansen are saying.

As for your comments about the temperatures of 1998, the temperatures corrected were American temperatures, first and foremost, and therefore wouldn’t apply in the country of origin of that article about 2009 temperatures, whether it was hotter or colder than 1934! The article is Australian, so they very well could have had warmer temperatures then than in 1934.

But more to the point, these temperatures corrected were American temperatures, rather than global temperatures reference by the claim of the hottest year on record. Even then, as I patiently pointed out before, temperatures have come along since then that have been hotter.

As for NASA? You’re taking a very political angle on scientific corrections, which is to say you take any need for correction as an admission of being totally wrong. The data has been corrected, and like that one guy said, in America, the record highes of 1934 and 1998 have gone from being in a virtual tie, to being in a virtual tie. The difference, as I’ve noted earlier, are measured in the hundredths of degrees.

Of course, the highly politicized global warming contrarians pounce on anything that looks like a mistake. But with science this complicated, and everybody being human anyway, errors are inevitable. They don’t necessarily change things, those there are plenty of cases where corrections have cleared things up.

James Hansen remains in charge at NASA for one reason: he’s a good scientist. He’s not making wild-eyed claims. He’s backing what he says with good data. Sometimes it needs a bit of correction, but did you see them stonewall on that? No. Trouble is, you can’t see Hansen in anything else than a political light, so he’s always an activist to you, which means he’s trying to push a purely partisan agenda.

Rhinehold-
As I noted to Rahdigly, those are not global temperatures that were corrected, but rather ones for America. The changes are slight. Besides, we’ve had hotter since.

As for the 1930’s and 40’s? Some Anthropogenic forcing was involved, but it was also largely natural. Think of it like trees in a forest. The branches can both sway in the wind, and because somebody’s shaking a tree. In fact, both can happen at the same time.

Natural Variability and anthropogenic variations are entangled with one another. They can cancel each other out, or amplify each other.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 13, 2007 8:48 PM
Comment #229283

“The warming is threatening polar bears which some predict will have to be put on the endangered species list in the next decade if the keep being found drowned, unable to reach an ice sheet or land. That is pretty monumental evidence of warming over time. A very short time in fact, several decades only.”
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2007 03:33 PM

Or, perhaps, mother polar bears more than ever before are having to raise their young cubs on their own without the help of a father in these trying times, and the young are not being taught the fundamentals of strength and endurance training or proper swimming techniques. Or, perhaps mother polar bears have adopted the liberal, dumbing down educational system that is no longer teaching young polar bears the skills they need to know when to get off their piece of ice before it slides out to sea and melts away.

JD

Posted by: JD at August 13, 2007 8:56 PM
Comment #229286
in a back-handed, smart-aleck way. Nice.

And yet, my comment truthfully pointed out the bad logic and invalid claims you were making. How ironic for you, of anyone, to complain about someone being a smart aleck.

Congrats, though, on making the same invalid claims three times. Do you want to tell us again that you were wrong multiple times?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 9:07 PM
Comment #229287

Woody

I bet conservatives come on to the carbon tax before liberals. It is a nice and elegant thing. It actually solves the problem w/o causing extensive adjustments or giving options for social engineering and corrupt politics.

Liberals prefer problems to solutions. It allows more scope for government intervention and control. I have long noticed in these debates that the lefties are long on talking about the dire consequences of global warming and short on real solutions or adaptations. Most of them just want to make laws and sign treaties w/o actually thinking about what needs to be done. I WILL give Gore credit on this (and Chris Dodd). He supports a carbon tax. His personal carbon offsets are just silly, however. They are like the indugences in the medieval church.

Max

Not a panacea, but w/o a carbon tax, nothing works. It is not sufficient, but it is necessary.

Kansas

Right. The carbon tax will produce cleaner air and less reliance on oil from volatile despotism. It is a good thing even if global warming is a hoax.

It makes sense to do some things just because they are good things to do.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2007 9:09 PM
Comment #229294

JD

Al Gore (of who I am not a fan) does not need to debate because anybody with differing data or interpretation of the data is free to add it to the discussion, to make a case for their theory— That is the way science works. That is how scientists get famous. Anybody who thinks that scientist sit around looking for way to agree and follow each others leads has no idea how competitive science is. Scientist get their rewards by knocking other scientist out of the box so to speak.

Global warming isn’t taking place—-fine, now come up with a theory that explains the data. Solar flair? could be…they peaked in 2002.. CO2 levels continue to increase. Why didn’t they drop off since?

Ok the earth isn’t getting warmer. Why are the ice caps melting, and glaciers, on 6 continents? Why are tropical diseases on the rise? Why is there a massive die off of coral? Could it be something other than global warming? yes! Does global warming provide the best explanation so far? yes! I’m all ears conservatives. What is your theory? You say Dems criticize but offer no solutions… this is your chance to show them how its done. Step to the plate. Come up with a theory that explains the data.

Posted by: 037 at August 13, 2007 9:39 PM
Comment #229295

Jack
You could bet conservatives will support a carbon before liberals but do not bet the farm. Have you not read any of your bretren’s post on subject of climate change? Its a good idea for other reasons also but what passes for conservatives these days will still never support a carbon tax as it would hurt their lords and masters,big oil.
Treaties and laws can and do make big differences. History if full of examples.That is how public policy has been implemented for what,the last 600 years or so.Still want examples? How about child labor. Just about eliminated in the West by laws. Treaties have helped cut down on it in the rest of the world. Better treaties would do more and will once we take the trash out or is that just more evil “social engineering”?

Posted by: BillS at August 13, 2007 9:42 PM
Comment #229296

Jack said
“Liberals prefer problems to solutions. It allows more scope for government intervention and control.”

ummm… we had a lot less of both under Clinton.
Can you site an example of where a liberal wanted the problem but not a viable, fair solution? Just one will do.

Posted by: 037 at August 13, 2007 9:43 PM
Comment #229297

I think it would be worthwhile for those that are convinced by rhetoric like Eric’s to pick up last week’s Newsweek. It has a very informative article about the history of the debate and the history of global warming deniers.

Basically, nearly all of the evidence and facts support the conclusion that the earth is heating up, the climate is changing, and human activity is the main contributor. Despite the almost complete lack of evidence contrary to that conclusion, a few industries with a stake in the matter decided to respond. They knew they couldn’t counter the Global Warming arguments in the realm of actual science, so they competed in the realm of PR. By finding a few non-expert scientists that liked to be contrarian or could be bought, they had just enough to make it seem like there argument had some validity. Sure, they didn’t actually produce any science or have practicing researchers in the relevant fields, but they just needed to have a couple of people who called themselves scientists (of whatever field or ability), and they’d be able to confuse enough Americans to stop political progress.

Congrats. You fell for it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 9:48 PM
Comment #229298
James Hansen remains in charge at NASA for one reason: he’s a good scientist. He’s not making wild-eyed claims. He’s backing what he says with good data. Sometimes it needs a bit of correction, but did you see them stonewall on that? No. Trouble is, you can’t see Hansen in anything else than a political light, so he’s always an activist to you, which means he’s trying to push a purely partisan agenda.


Hansen is a political activist; saying that he is a “good scientist” is not credible enough. And, the fact that a blogger had to bring up that point, rather than NASA, has a “Rathergate-like” aura to it. Ah, the blogosphere; no wonder why Internet News Audience’s are Highly Critical of News Organizations.

Added to which indignity, now you have Newsweek cover story: The Truth About Denial coming out with their attack on the deniers! Now, take a look at this (response) piece: Newsweek: Alarmed by Deniers; this guy rips apart this newsweek report and the consensus scare mongers.


The truth is, read any legitimate scientific study on climate — including IPCC’s — that suggests human influence is the dominant cause for global warming, and you will discover dozens of qualifiers like “could,” “possibly,” “potentially,” and “may.” For all the certainty and consensus that global warming fear-mongers assert, those sound a lot like weasel words.

When taking that into consideration, you realize that both camps are in the “maybe” category on climate change. It’s just a matter of degrees (there’s a fortunate pun). But the consensus claimers are all too happy to let the allegation “they deny the science of global warming” to stand alone, making the undiscerning believe that global warming skeptics reject the clear evidence that the earth is warming. Both sides generally agree that the planet has increased in temperature by one degree in the past 100 years; the so-called “deniers” simply question the cause and whether there is a need for the costly remedies that the green groups want.

At the heart of it all, of course, is the deniers’ money. Begley emphasizes repeatedly how big oil and utilities feed the opinions from conservative think tanks. But what about the flow of cash that sustains the nonprofit-driven eco-movement? The dollars pushing global warming paranoia, coming from wealthy foundations like those established by Merck, the Rockefellers and Ted Turner, dwarf the skeptics’ resources. But Begley and Newsweek show prejudice only against certain shades of green — both monetary and ecological.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 13, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #229300

Jack
I have net yet heard you mention the other thing government can do to provide incentives. The Government is also a major purchaser of goods and services. They can dictate the terms of that purchase and let the market work out how the demand will be met. If the government said that as of 2050 all government vehicle will run on hydrogen you can bet somebody will produce a viable hydrogen fuel source. Which by the way has been done.

Posted by: 037 at August 13, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment #229301

Funny. Rah and I were talking about the same article. Unfortunately, he once again shows that he doesn’t understand how science works. Since the people behind the science are actually serious scientists, they use words like “could,” “possibly,” “potentially,” and “may.” They are being honest.

If they were really the fanatics and dogmatists that Rah and Eric want everyone to believe they are, they wouldn’t use these honest words.

global warming skeptics reject the clear evidence that the earth is warming

They almost all used too. Fewer do now because they know it’s a losing argument.

the so-called “deniers” simply question the cause

It’s not simply questioning the cause; it’s denying that we’ve figured out a lot of that answer.

dwarf the skeptics’ resources

Yeah, the environmentalists have more money than the oil industry (currently experiencing the biggest profits in the history of capitalism) and the auto industry (which has lots of money around the world). Yeah, right.

Rah, please at least try to make sense next time.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 13, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #229302

“could,” “possibly,” “potentially,” and “may.” For all the certainty and consensus that global warming fear-mongers assert, those sound a lot like weasel words.

I guess thats why we never heard them when we were discussing WMD in Iraq?

I guess you folks have a hard time with people who are willing to change their mind in light of new evidence? Who don’t think they have all the answers? Who realise they might have to adjust their thinking as they go along? Now please go into a rant about how liberals are intellectual elitists…..

Posted by: 037 at August 13, 2007 10:03 PM
Comment #229305
Global warming isn’t taking place—-fine, now come up with a theory that explains the data. Solar flair? could be…they peaked in 2002.. CO2 levels continue to increase. Why didn’t they drop off since?

Well, not to defend it but the theory as I’ve read it is that the CO2 rise that occurs during this period lags the rise and fall of temps. So according to them the CO2 levels should start falling off soon.

Gerard Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, along with nine other experts on oceans, environmental physics, tree-ring formation and glaciation from around the world, have examined the rates of deposit of tiny particles from melting icebergs in the North Atlantic.

And what have they found? Why, lo and behold, during periods of increased sun strength, the oceans have warmed and the bergs have melted more rapidly

I’m not sure how that meshes, but I still think that we have a lot to learn, especially about chaotic systems, when we STILL don’t know all of the paramaters involved.

(Of course, I stil think we should be finding an alternative fuel source, because it makes sense, but I don’t think it will do much on the global warming front personally).

BTW, just curious… The sudden rise in temps/CO2 in the atmosphere, seems to have occured about the time we cut back all CFCs for fear of us expanding the ozone hole. Perhaps the pollution and chemicals of the industrial age, WWII and the post war expansion was keeping ozone out of the and preventing a more slow temp rise that we kicked into gear by removing those CFCs from the atmosphere. *Mind, this is just a musing I had today and is no way meant to be SCIENTIFICLY based, I would have to do a lot of research… but what if what we do makes things worse one way or another?*

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #229311

037

I fall back on my favorite subject - the carbon tax. Read some of the responses I get from liberals. They often cry because it is unfair to the poor etc. Often viable solutions are not “fair”, since by definition a good solution alters behavior and even if almost everyone benefits, some will benefit more than others.

Re Clinton

I fall back on what I have written re Clinton. I do not say many bad things about him. The DLC style Dems did a decent job with the economy, but I will point out two things. (1) Clinton started doing well only after 1994 when faced with the Gingrich congress to give him ideas and keep him more honest and (2) his DLC brand of Dem is out of style these days. None of the candidates would even attend their meeting.

Maybe I would add a third one. The Clinton times are remembered better than they are. Our economy is in about the same shape today as it was in 1998 in terms of real wages, unemployment etc. In other words, the Clinton times were a lot like ours today.

Re Government purchases - good. I would support that. The government often tries to make us do things that it does not want to do itself. It is better if they lead by example.

Posted by: Jack at August 13, 2007 11:23 PM
Comment #229312
you can bet somebody will produce a viable hydrogen fuel source. Which by the way has been done.

Link? Because the last *I* had heard, the fuel cell technology wasn’t cost effective *AND* still relied upon petrolium in order to process the fuel.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #229314

BTW, a small word about scientific consensus… Wasn’t it about 100 years ago when ‘scientific consensus’ was that there was no such thing as an atom and less than 50 years ago when scientific consensus was that the atom was the smallest particle in existence.

Consensus doesn’t mean right. If we find that the data was cooked (and there is some evidence of that with the medeival warming period suddenly disappearing in the IPCC reports) and abandoning of Boltzmann’s laws without reason other than to change the results, it has to put some question to the results.

I do have a question though… If this is such a ‘hot’ topic (sorry, couldn’t help myself) why are there 1/3 of the temperature stations collecting data than 30 years ago? From 6000 down to 2000?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #229316
As I noted to Rahdigly, those are not global temperatures that were corrected, but rather ones for America. The changes are slight. Besides, we’ve had hotter since.

Ok, how does this all fit into the knowledge that it was warmer in the Medeival warming period than it is now? Greenland was actually green with Viking settlements that we are finding under the permafrost, a lack of ice at the north pole (chinese naval vessels saile around it in the mid 1400s) and Antarctica has gained ice over the past 30 years? Why was the data from the Medeival Warm Period ‘phased out’ of the IPCC reports?

BTW, have you read Of Moths and Men by Judith Hooper? Great example of what MAY be going on, remember the experiments that proved that pollution caused natural selection to occur, peppered moths surviving better in polluted forests? It appears that the experiment was invalid, but once it was believed by the scientific community, it was cannon, so to speak.

The question Hooper sets out to answer is why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific community and allowed to attain iconic status in evolutionary biology. Her answer: because scientists wanted to believe it. Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith. Hooper’s meticulous research provides a fascinating insight into the fallibility of scientists - after all, as she points out, they are only human.

Hooper’s absorbing account of a flawed if not fraudulent experiment reveals an all-too-human side to scientists that will annoy professionals and enthral laypeople in equal measure. One thing is clear, though - science is much more than a collection of objective facts and figures. Ambition, jealousy, and megalomania are all part of this complex equation.

Are we really polluting more now than when we were pouring coal and other types of industrial carbage into air? I seems, as an old man, that our atmosphere and rivers are cleaner now than any time since the beginning of the industrial revolution… When was the last time the Cuyahoga River caught on fire? Are we just now seeing the result of THAT time? How much lag is in the system?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 13, 2007 11:50 PM
Comment #229319

Rhinehold

Here is your link to start.

Hydrogen is readily available as a fuel.

http://www.ocees.com/main2.html

Posted by: 037 at August 14, 2007 12:00 AM
Comment #229322

Um, not readily available. From the link “Hydrogen may be produced by splitting hydrocarbon molecules” and “Electrolosis is most effective”.

Which are great, but don’t mention exactly how these processing systems are powered? Are you suggesting that they use the power generated from the process to repower the process and create ‘extra’ energy? Otherwise, petrolium, or coal powered electricity, or possibly natural gas, or even nuclear.. are the only large volume ways to generate the usable hydrogen.

I agree that this is a great technology, but it is NOT ready for prime time just yet, until we can figure out a better way to generate this fuel.

Nevertheless, hydrogen may be considered an energy source when extracted from subsurface reservoirs of hydrogen gas, methane and natural gas (steam reforming and water gas shift reaction), coal (coal gasification) or oil shale (oil shale gasification). Electrolysis, which requires electricity, and high-temperature electrolysis/thermochemical production, which requires high temperatures (ideal for nuclear reactors), are two primary methods for the extraction of hydrogen from water.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 12:10 AM
Comment #229323

Oh the link and

Hydrogen production is only as clean as the energy sources used to produce it. A holistic approach has to take into consideration the impacts of an extended hydrogen scenario. This refers to the production, the use and the disposal of infrastructure and energy converters.
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #229327

Rhineholt

Um, not readily available. From the link “Hydrogen may be produced by splitting hydrocarbon molecules” and “Electrolosis is most effective”.

It called WATER.

The power source is the sun.

It uses basic physical principals that have been around since the 1800’s


here are links about the technology.

http://www.oceansatlas.com/servlet/CDSServlet?status=ND0zMDYzJmN0bl9pbmZvX3ZpZXdfc2l6ZT1jdG5faW5mb192aWV3X2Z1bGwmNj1lbiYzMz0qJjM3PWtvcw~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

Posted by: 037 at August 14, 2007 12:28 AM
Comment #229328

From your link:

The total energy available is one or two orders of magnitude higher than other ocean energy options such as wave power, but the small size of the temperature difference makes energy extraction difficult and expensive. Hence, existing OTEC systems have an overall efficiency of only 1 to 3%.
Some energy experts believe that if it could become cost-competitive with conventional power technologies, OTEC could produce gigawatts of electrical power. Bringing costs into line is still a huge challenge, however. All OTEC plants require an expensive, large diameter intake pipe, which is submerged a mile or more into the ocean’s depths, to bring very cold water to the surface.

Given, say, 50 years and advances in technology to make this profitable, then it may well be a great solution.

But *today* as I stated, it is not ready for prime time.

Oh, and what are the long term environmental impacts of mucking about with the thermal differnces in the ocean on a large enough scale to power our society exactly?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 12:35 AM
Comment #229329

Given, say, 50 years and advances in technology to make this profitable, then it may well be a great solution.

That was the point of the first link I put up.
has the potential to be profitable. And if you read all the link you would see they make the point that it is much more likely to be profitable if they had the same subsidies and tax breaks as the oil companies. Thats were the politics comes in.

As far as the environmental cost? I don’t know.

Posted by: 037 at August 14, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #229330

Rhinehold, the answer to your questions lie in the ice cores dating back a very long time. The cycles of warming and cooling are pretty regular baring heavenly object collision with earth and periods of heightened volcanic activity or lulls. Regular that is, until the last 100 years or so.

Coal and wood burning stoves were a problem in the 19th and first half of the 20th century, but, population numbers were significantly smaller and manufacturing process were dramatically smaller in terms of pollution output. The rain forests were very much intact then as well.

In the last 100 years, the progressive rise in temperature followed an absence mini-cooling period which the ice record indicated would have taken place were it not for industrialization.

The ice cores even reveal the massive effect on cyclical cooling and warming created by the Roman Empire’s sudden and massive need for smelting lead and iron, and bronze, for everything from massive public water works (lead lined) to weaponry and architecture. The fires of Roman Empire expansion through sudden and massive amounts of carbon and CO2 into the atmosphere which registered as particulate buildup and ice gases in the snow falls on Greenland from around 250 BC to its peak around 250 AD. The Chinese were also engaged in similar activities at the time. CO2 levels were significantly higher in the ice cores during these ancient industrial times and then fell off during Medieval times. With the exception of the Pompeii volcanic cataclysm, this was a fairly inactive volcanic period and the sulphur and other volcanic gas content in the ice cores allow for isolating this even from the rest of the period, leaving the correlation between human industrial activity and greenhouse gas capture in the ice cores as a powerful piece of evidence for the influence of human activity upon global climatic conditions as compared to the cyclical periods predating significant human populations and industrial periods.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #229333

David,

With the CO2 levels falling off, how do they explain the medeival warming period that was warmer than our current temps, with a green Greenland, a frozen Thames River and much less north pole ice?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 12:57 AM
Comment #229335

Jack re: what happens when we leave:

Two facts about human nature abound in our historical record. Power vacuums have extremely short life spans, and humans are always seeking organization out of chaos.

From these two facts, some probabilities can be defined. If we leave, surrounding nations, threatened by the potential of regional warfare disrupting wealth for heads of states, will seek to forge a power pact with the Iraqi government to prevent a power vacuum. It is absolutely in their in pocketbook and power base interest to do so.

Secondly, though violence and chaos may increase in certain areas of Iraq, there will be coincident herculean moves by many Iraqis of all sects to counter it with organization. With the resources and assistance of neighboring nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, etc. seeking to defend against sectarian civil uprising in their own countries in sympathy with their Iraqi brethren, these Iraqi Organizers have a reasonable chance of accomplishing what they cannot now sucking on the U.S. tit of soured milk. U.S. presence is both nutritional in that it funds Iraqi government operations and infrastructure but its taste is curdled by the U.S. presence catalyzing violence and regional tensions as well.

There are no guarantees. But the prospects for Iraq are just as likely to improve over 2 years after our leaving as they are to get worse. One thing is for sure, our presence is not motivating Iraqi government reconciliation and that means maintenance of the current untenable situation for both Iraq and the U.S. public and treasury.

We need to go. We need to go, in a pre-announced, phased, orderly, and secure fashion that allows regional nations and the Iraqi government to hammer out agreements on how the staged vacuum increases will be filled for security interests of both Iraq and regional neighbors. The U.N. I read is also ready to provide assistance.

It is time for America to make the announcement, and commit to redeploying out of Iraq. It is in fact, about 2 years past time.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 1:22 AM
Comment #229343

Jack,

Suppose someone told you that they were passionately committed to outlawing abortion, but they didn’t want to work with conservatives because they didn’t seem serious enough about banning abortion. After all, they were always proposing half-measures like banning partial-birth abortion. The real promise, this person thinks, lies with liberals who really believe in government regulation. They just need to convinced about how bad abortion is, and then they will be ready to ban it.

Wouldn’t that seem a little, what’s the word I’m looking for, idiotic, to you?

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 6:17 AM
Comment #229344

Woody

There are different sorts of government intervention. As I repeat very often (it bears repeating) a market system consists of rule of law, reasonable regulation and the market mechanism. If we pull out one of these things, we have troubles.

A good government regulation works within the market mechanism and does not pretend that it can repeal the law of supply and demand. Therefore, it creates conditions and incentives by which market forces can let people use their intelligence, innovation and ingenuity to solve problems. This means that government officials cannot closely manage and plan outcomes, since the outcomes, which will be the result of the intelligence of the people, are unknown in advance. It also means that the solutions are likely to be better and more robust than those the bureaucrats and experts would have come up with. People who are closer to the problem usually have more ability to judge and get more immediate feedback. There are also many more of them working on it. That is the beauty of the market. It provides coordination of many minds, information and incentives w/o the direct management efforts of any authorities.

The carbon tax is an excellent example of this. The market does not charge enough for carbon based energy because its negative effects are external to the product. It creates pollution, CO2, encourages congestion and makes us dependent on volatile regions of the world. None of this is reflected in the market price for gasoline. A tax on carbon takes this into account. After that it leaves it to the people to take the next steps. Some people drive less, change habits and conserve fuel. Others figure out ways to use alternatives. Still others figure out ways to get better mileage or telecommute. A combination of all these things addresses the problem.

If government steps in to mandate particular solutions, and puts the weight of law behind them, it might create solutions that do not work or cannot be easily abandoned when they stop working. Government is also a political institution, which is swayed and sometimes corrupted by existing interests. It may choose political solutions (usually does).

So when I talk of market solutions to environmental problems, I am not asking government to stay out of the way. We need government to address the external costs of the products we use. But there are smart and dumb ways to do things. The smart way uses the market mechanism, in the environmental parlance -works with the nature of the system. The dumb way tries to force particular outcomes throug heavy handed regualtion.

Posted by: Jack at August 14, 2007 7:58 AM
Comment #229346

The problem is the the Climate War is a Political War now. When Gore says something, of course the otherside, says just the opposite. When the otherside says something, then Gore and his side says something. With the government holding the purse string of many sciencetist and research facilities, do they want to po and bite the hand that feeds them?

I have to agree that even if gobal warming is false(I myself believe there is gobal warming), and we as a nation, let alone the world have to make changes to get rid of the excess carbon etc, it would be a better thing, cleaner air and water. Will it cost jobs maybe/maybe not.

But again, the climate war is now a political war and as long as it is, it is a lose/lose situtation.

Posted by: KT at August 14, 2007 8:15 AM
Comment #229357

KT,

I agree but I think it is even worse now, it has become a RELIGION to some people. Logic and reasonableness goes right out of the window there.

I understand that the earth is warming and that humans, as a part of nature, are part of that equation of cause along with other system cycles that we are just starting to understand. I worry that if we interfere with the conveyor it will cause issues that will be hart to pull back from. Having a clean renewable energy source would not only help that but make us energy independant and the Middle East could then go suck our toes, metaphorically speaking. But even further, why are we focused on cars (there are plenty of other causes of CO2) and not also spending time talking about the various ways of removing the existing carbon from the atmosphere? It seems that even if we were to go completely flat on CO2 production, the existing CO2 would be an issue. Prudency would dictate we examine that as well. Unfortunately this gets almost no press at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #229364
It’s not simply questioning the cause; it’s denying that we’ve figured out a lot of that answer.

What have you figured out?! As was stated in Newsweek: Alarmed by Deniers; both sides are in the “maybe” category; science isn’t about maybe.

The truth is, read any legitimate scientific study on climate — including IPCC’s —that suggests human influence is the dominant cause for global warming, and you will discover dozens of qualifiers like “could,” “possibly,” “potentially,” and “may.”…When taking that into consideration, you realize that both camps are in the “maybe” category on climate change. It’s just a matter of degrees (there’s a fortunate pun).

Posted by: rahdigly at August 14, 2007 10:59 AM
Comment #229365
As was stated in Newsweek: Alarmed by Deniers…

Just because an inaccurate blogger says it doesn’t make it true.

Please look at the science. We’ve given dozens of links here.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 14, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #229366

rahdigly,

You are offering a win/win argument for the climate change deniers. When committees get together and carefully present their results, you knock them for using qualifiers like “probably”. When guys like Al Gore take out the qualifiers, you get to call them crazy alarmists.

It’s a perfect system. You guys can maintain your state of denial forever. Just don’t be surprised if the rest of us leave you behind.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 14, 2007 11:11 AM
Comment #229369

Woody,

The scientists are right to use qualifiers because they are not sure. If they were sure they wouldn’t use the qualifiers, that’s how science works. Boltzman didn’t use ‘possibly’ when describing the existence of atoms.

When Al Gore exaggerates the claims, he gives the deniers even more ammo by overstating and stating as fact what is belief. If he, and the others who views this as a religion, would stop doing that then real dialog can take place.

We are ‘pretty sure’ but not for sure because there are still variables that we don’t know, things that may or may not be affecting the system that we don’t know and until we do we are just taking a best guess at it. So when someone does come along and say ‘hey, what about this, how does this fit’, just regurgitating the same information and calling them ‘stupid’ doesn’t really help the cause, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #229370

From the site that Professor John McCarthy (Stanford) has put together as part of his “Human Material Progress is Sustainable” website. McCarthy is a professor of computer science, and like us here, this is a hobby for him. The site is well researched none the less.

Schemes for powering cars or houses that require violating the law of conservation of energy can’t work. Here’s an example. Several times I have received in email the following idea for powering cars with hydrogen from water. Run the car on hydrogen obtained by splitting water by electrolysis using the car’s generator to get the electricity. Here’s why it won’t work. The amount of energy you get from burning hydrogen and running a generator produces at most the amount of energy required to replace the energy used to split the water. There would be none left over to power the car. Actually, you would get considerably less energy than is needed to get more hydrogen to replace that burned. Most likely it would be about 20 percent. Splitting water to get hydrogen is not an original source of energy. Rather it is a way of tranforming energy into a form more usable for a certain purpose.


The page on Engery

The Main page

He is a proponent of nuclear energy, so if that’s against your environmental religion then beware.

Posted by: George in SC at August 14, 2007 11:28 AM
Comment #229373

Oh, so now the blogger is inaccurate; way to back up those claims. And, (of course) the newsweek article, along with the “journalist”, “looked at the science”?! Her “claims” are accurate and not biased (in any way)?!! Don’t think so. The Newsweek article is a bunch of bull and yet another example of the “man-made” global warming scare tactic.

You try (and try) to say that I am the one that does not use real facts or does not listen to the the scientists (when I indeed do); yet, you won’t listen to the scientists that are skeptical of the “Consensus”.

In politics this is the best we can do in making decisions to proceed with political actions. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science.

Posted by: rahdigly at August 14, 2007 11:57 AM
Comment #229375
Oh, so now the blogger is inaccurate; way to back up those claims.

The guy claimed that environmentalists have more money than the oil companies and the auto industry. I’d say he’s misinformed at best.

I also explained above why his other claims are invalid.

And yes, the Newsweek article did look at the science, and it interviewed many of the leading research scientists in the relevant fields.

I’m sorry you think the article is bull because you don’t like the conclusion it came to. There’s not much I can do about that.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 14, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #229377

BTW Rah,

The scientist you linked to with “Consensus” is another example of what the Newsweek article talked about; confusing the populace with scientists that aren’t experts in the relevant field.

Michael R. Fox has 37 years experience in the nuclear field. He has held a wide variety of research, development, and management positions involving nuclear waste management, fuel reprocessing, plutonium laboratory management, research and development, nuclear waste separation and solidification, and geologic repository projects.

I know you’re really excited that you found a scientist that tells you what you want to believe. However, relying on experts in nuclear waste management when discussing climate change doesn’t mean you’re listening to people who know what they are talking about in this field.

Again, you fell for it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 14, 2007 12:35 PM
Comment #229381
The guy claimed that environmentalists have more money than the oil companies and the auto industry. I’d say he’s misinformed at best.

Then prove it! How is he misinformed?! Cite a
source. Show where “Merck, the Rockefellers and Ted Turner” did not fund them. Back up you claim; show where he is “misinformed”.

By the way, you (conveniently) left out an important factor in Dr. Fox’s long and respected career.

This includes many years of experience in technical supervision of multi-discipline areas of expertise. Recognized nationally for expertise in the communication of science and energy, he has advised and provided expertise to local, state, and national leaders involving nuclear waste management, energy policy, health, environmental, and safety issues, medical isotopes, science based regulations, and related issues.


Posted by: rahdigly at August 14, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #229382

Rah,

Why is it up to me to show that environmentalists have more money than the most profitable industry in the history of the world? Besides failing the common sense test, why do you automatically accept what he says, yet I have to prove myself?

Just use a bit of logic, please.

By the way, you (conveniently) left out an important factor in Dr. Fox’s long and respected career.

You’re right, I didn’t include his secondary specialty in medical isotopes. Please forgive me.

Or do you think his experience in safety issues is the relevant one? Or regulations?

He’s not an expert in the relevant fields. “energy policy” can mean a lot of things, and it’s far from his primary area of research. My point stands.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 14, 2007 2:14 PM
Comment #229386


I guess I will have to dust off my biology degree and get myself a big chunk of all that environmental movement wealth. I was planning to write an article, exposing the environmental hoax, for Exxon-Mobil but, it’s wealth is just chump change conpared to what the environmentalists can pay.

Posted by: jlw at August 14, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #229390

Why waste time writing an article JLW?
Just make a “the sky is falling” movie and people will make you rich.
It worked for Art Bell and al gore, surely it can work for others.

Posted by: kctim at August 14, 2007 4:10 PM
Comment #229391

Don’t forget Al’s disciple, Leonardo…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 14, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #229393

Ok, got it now. So, it is “Philosopher” lawnboy when it comes to debate; though, you cannot even back up your “claim” that the writer’s claim, that environmentalists give more money (to push the global warming paranoia) than the the oil industry does to the skeptics, is incorrect. He claimed they do; so, if you want to dispute it (as is your right to disagree) then have the fortitude and the logic to back it up. Show where he is wrong (if you can!).

Now it is “Scientist” Lawnboy that (somehow) has more credentials (in the scientific community) than Dr. Michael R. Fox. Prove you have more experience or credentials to even dispute this guy!! You could have cited another scientist that disagrees with his view on Consensus science. Yet, you proved how “above” everyone you are (when you are definitely not!) by discrediting this scientist b/c of the irrelevancy of his field!?! Uhhhh, he is a Scientist!! He has every right and (credence) to speak about (and debunk) “Consensus science”!!

It is obvious that one, you do not know what you are talking about (you just want to argue) and two, that it is (indeed) you who is the one being fooled by the religious cult (scare tactics) of the Humans are causing global warming crowd. Oh well, the choices in life…

Posted by: rahdigly at August 14, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #229400

rahdigly, you comment fails the wisdom test of “believe only half of what you see and none of what you hear” without strong evidence and proof.

Anyone can make any kind of claim effortlessly. Wise people pay no heed unless, and until evidence and proof ACCOMPANY the claim. It is not for critics to prove people with an agenda wrong, it is for the people with an agenda to prove they are right. The environmentalists have presented mountains of evidence that they are right about the trend of warming and the correlations with human activity. When a majority of the scientific community’s agree and the majority of the people listening to their spokespersons also agree, it is a pretty overwhelming probability they are right.

NO, it is not guaranteed that they are right, for proof of things of this prophetic nature come with the future transitioning to past and the prophetic claims coming to pass. But, those who sit frozen, fearing to act to shape the future, will be shaped by their future of inaction.

Your comments are short on logic and void of wisdom born out of prudent action. All actions have a cost, rahdigly, even inaction can carry tremendous costs. To choose to fight the preponderance of the evidence for the agenda of avoiding the costs of fighting it, has itself a huge opportunity cost attached. Thus, the action of fighting to save future cost is self-defeating: when one fights a majority of windmills, the windmills will usually be victorious.

BTW, one of those windmills is now a growing number of Fundamentalist Republican Evangelical Christians who are moving to support the religious edict to be a good steward of God’s creation called Earth by advocating with environmentalists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 5:22 PM
Comment #229401
you cannot even back up your “claim” that the writer’s claim, that environmentalists give more money (to push the global warming paranoia) than the the oil industry does to the skeptics, is incorrect.

Why would I try to back that up? That wasn’t my claim.

Here’s what I disagreed with:

The dollars pushing global warming paranoia, coming from wealthy foundations like those established by Merck, the Rockefellers and Ted Turner, dwarf the skeptics’ resources.

I was ridiculing the claim about the resources of the skeptics. Since the skeptics include the oil industry and the auto industry, they have practically unlimited resources.

So, please prove to me that the money from foundations exceeds the resources of the oil industry, and then you’ll have a point. Otherwise, I think I have supported my counter-argument.

However, even if you could prove me wrong you wouldn’t really have a point in the bigger context. The evidence that support human-caused global climate change is not (for the most part) coming from groups funded by those foundations. The research is coming from universities and laboratories around the world funded by governments and corporations and who knows what else. This blogger’s argument about the wealthy liberal foundations is just irrelevant. The facts and evidence about climate change are being discovered by scientists around the world that have nothing at all to do with the liberal bogeymen he wants us to fear.

It’s all just a red herring.

Further, I never claimed to have better scientific credentials than Dr. Michael R. Fox. I am claiming that, while he is more of a scientist than I am, he is not more of a practicing research climate scientist than I am. While the one article you point to was about “Consensus”, he’s written other (non-peer-reviewed) articles directly about climate change in which he repeats easily-rebutted points that betray how far he is out of his element.

I don’t need to be a climate scientist to point out that he isn’t one, either. I’m not sure why you think I would need to be.

The “Humans are causing global warming crowd” are not a cult. While there are some on the fringe who behave that way, you are maligning the finest scientific minds using the latest research and all the information at their disposal. I’m really sorry the choice you made in life is to confuse the two.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 14, 2007 5:37 PM
Comment #229403

Rhinehold asked: “With the CO2 levels falling off, how do they explain the medeival warming period that was warmer than our current temps, with a green Greenland, a frozen Thames River and much less north pole ice?”

The same way it took 75 years of polluting industry and population growth to begin to display warming today. Climate doesn’t change on a dime ordinarily unless an abrupt cataclysmic event alters climatological factors overnight like a large meteorite striking the planet. There are changes that take place that must reach a critical tipping point before effects are forthcoming, and both the changes and the effects can be gradual for a period of time.

A gradual melting of ice at our polls can bring slow but inevitable major changes to earth’s climate. Conversely, a sudden and massive glacial breakage and plunge into the ocean can have the same effect much more abruptly. What shows up in Greenland ice cores often does not render consequences in climate for a good deal of time afterward, it depends on whether the influencing variable evidence in the ice cores build up gradually or abruptly.

And the reason climatology is in large part a statistical science is precisely because climate results from a myriad of influences which can mitigate or enhance each other. If the ice core shows a large buildup of carbon and soot deposits but, the those deposits are not followed by evidence of global cooling, one must look for other mitigating influences to explain, like the earth’s tilt in procession or, position in its rubber band orbit around the sun which vacillates between near circular and elliptical.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2007 5:39 PM
Comment #229405

JD-
You know, there’s a good reason that Conservatives get made into bad guys so easy. Leave it to somebody on the Right to blame Polar Bears for not having the swimming skills to deal with their loss of habitat.

Rahdigly-
In atmospheric science, anybody who gives you precise predictions that far out is lying to you. It’s not possible to nail things down with 100% certainty, nor to attribute things with that degree of perfect certainty either, since there’s no way to drop the entire environment into a lab. These aren’t weasel words, they are a recognition of the complexity and unpredictability of the system itself.

It takes a boat load of semantics to argue that because scientists give ranges of possible temperatures, that they’re in the maybe category on global warming. No, most scientists agree that there is human-caused warming influences at work. The real question is how that warming plays out, and that’s the difficult thing to nail down.

As for the money supporting the ecological movement? These petroleum companies clear tens of billions of dollars in profits every year, and you’re saying the green folks are dwarfing them in material resources? They also have a shitload of well-funded Republican and industry thinktanks, and willing columnists, pundits, and bloggers willing to spread this bamboozlement at the drop of a hat. You’re not hurting for those resources.

Meanwhile the alternatives are fighting to get on the market, in comparison what the people you’re trying to get us to pity are doing. What’s tipping the balance is that Katrina made a rather stark point to most Americans about how much we are at the mercy of our climate. Nobody could look at that flooded city, regardless of whose to blame for not keeping it from getting flooded, and not sense the power we’re up against. Do we want to play games with the forces of nature that can shut down an entire city in a day, and kill thousands of people in that time? For all our technology, we are vulnerable.

As for Michael R. Fox? The truth of the matter is, there is only one universe, and only one truth behind what we see out there. There is one set of laws of physics for one set of people, and another for the next, there is just one set, about which people have disagreements, which in science are resolved by means of examination of the facts, which are analyzed by disciplined means and processes intended to weed out what people think is true from what actually is.

Consensus building is wrong in science only to the degree to which is not built through the disciplines of the science. If it comes out of the science, then it is basically the only reasonable direction to go, unless you have a better idea. In that case, you submit the new theory to the test, and if it works better, it will gradually build a greater consensus to itself. The process is imperfect, but the object is ultimately a reliable consensus upon which further study and further examination of the natural world can be built.

It helps when you’re dealing with the consensus of a particular field to know what’s going on in a game. When getting a ride home from work, I often end up getting information about sports, but if you really quizzed me, I probably would come up short. If, however, you talked to me about movies and filmmaking, I’d be much more on the ball. People need to devote time and effort to learning things, to know them well enough to speak and write with authority on them. You take the word of people who do this as a hobby, or as activists, who have little professional familiarity with the field, over those who’ve made it their life’s work.

It’s funny, but every rhetorical instrument you use seems aimed at keeping things in the air. Whether it’s attacking the uncertainty inherent to the field as if it were the result of sloppy science, attacking the consensus as being politically motivated, attacking the reliability of the data, or offering up any number of theories as alternatives, without serious factual backup, the whole point seems to be to sow doubt, even in the face of evidence that minimizes that doubt for most scientists.

Scientists are not supposed to consider all possibilities equally likely at all times. They are supposed to prune away what the evidence does not support. Many of these things your people suggest have already been disproven as explanations of the warming that is occuring. Unfortunately, your side has a very hard time letting go of pet explanations that the facts contradict or don’t find to be strong enough to explain the change.

Rhinehold-
The first thing to understand is that only today is the emission of CO2 dominated by human sources. Another thing to understand is that changes in climate can feedback into and cause differences in the levels of CO2. The lag can occur because a warming spell caused by increases in solar irradiation, changes in orbital patterns, or other events precedes and causes the initial increase. Thereafter, the CO2 can cause its own increase in concentrations. Increases in decay rates and other feedback can be caused by the rise in heat.

The issue with CO2 levels today is that we are overloading and/or destroying many of the carbon sinks, the places that would respond to the rise in CO2 by tucking it away or absorbing it. That’s why a fall-off is unlikely. You should be aware that in talking about a chaotic system, you are talking about a system that is sensitive to small inputs, and which creates different outcomes, within certain bounds.

It’s important to understand that Chaos does not imply utter randomness, merely the inability for us to nail things down to a perfect, periodic nugget of predictability, like those we find in traditional physics.

As for your CFC theory? First issue is that CFCs and Ozone both function as greenhouse gases. Second, what has been recorded, in terms of dropping temperatures down, has been soot from the old industrial age factories. When Eastern Europe switched from old Soviet machinery to cleaner stuff from the west, their temperatures rose significantly.

Would polluting more prevent Global Warming? Not really. Many of the worst polluting fuels, like coal, also produce the most CO2. Additionally, the best you’re doing is masking the inevitable effect.

On the subject of scientific consensus, Atoms were part of the consensus by the middle of the 19th century. The idea that they were indivisible was knocked down by 1897 by J.J. Thomson when he discovered the electron. The proton was discovered in 1918 by Ernest Rutherford and the neutron in 1932 by James Chadwick. It’s also worth noting that Quantum Physics already and Relativity had already shown up at this point.

As for Boltzmann’s law, that seems to relate to idealized blackbodies. Our planet isn’t one. That’s what the greenhouse effect is about. Boltzmann’s laws describe a perfect black body, something that merely radiates back energy that it absorbs. The Earth doesn’t do that. The Greenhouse Effect complicates this. The Greenhouse gases absorb and reradiates warmth back to the planet, which in turn absorbs and reradiates to the atmosphere. If real climate can be likened to a Baseball game, Boltzmann’s blackbodies are just batting practice. If Boltzmann’s law isn’t there explicitly, it’s either because it’s rolled into the models already on a deeper level, or because somebody found a better way of approximating the relationship mathematically.

As far as the Medieval Warm Period goes, it helps to point out that so far there’s little evidence that it was a global warm period. As it is, the case could be made that Europe enjoys a rather warm climate for it’s latitudes, thanks to the Gulf Stream and the Thermohaline conveyor. This is an illustration of the complexity of climate, and the pitfalls of making bland generalizations about the world from localized data. If you want a global idea of things, you use data from around the globe, not just Europe.

I think you ought to get a much better idea of what the proponents of Global Warming theory are saying, and what it actually means, before you start letting the contrarians tell you what’s what, because many of these people are oversimplifying the scientific problems seriously, the Boltzmann reference being a case in point.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 14, 2007 6:00 PM
Comment #229418

I am going to get away from the “boys” and go to the (slightly more) grown ups here.

Stephen,

As for Michael R. Fox? The truth of the matter is, there is only one universe, and only one truth behind what we see out there. There is one set of laws of physics for one set of people, and another for the next, there is just one set, about which people have disagreements, which in science are resolved by means of examination of the facts, which are analyzed by disciplined means and processes intended to weed out what people think is true from what actually is. Consensus building is wrong in science only to the degree to which is not built through the disciplines of the science. If it comes out of the science, then it is basically the only reasonable direction to go, unless you have a better idea. In that case, you submit the new theory to the test, and if it works better, it will gradually build a greater consensus to itself. The process is imperfect, but the object is ultimately a reliable consensus upon which further study and further examination of the natural world can be built.


It sounds like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, do you agree with his assessment of Consensus?!! If not, why?

In politics this is the best we can do in making decisions to proceed with political actions. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science. In the legal community there are standards of evidence which are equally unsatisfactory in settling scientific issues, such as “preponderance of evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”. In matters of law these are about the best we can do, short of confessions, but in scientific disputes it is inappropriate. Scientific disputes must be settled by evidence, the data, the facts, and not through verbal skills, political intimidation, or suppression of unpleasant evidence. Nor can they be settled by computer predictions, since these results are not evidence either.


Let’s be clear: the acquisition of knowledge of the natural sciences has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics, of polite agreements on where to plant the daisies, or where to build the library. Letters from US Senators to silence critics is a familiar display of totalitarian instincts, a rather un-American activity we should think.

Serious scientists should welcome criticism, and many have in the past. Hypotheses are to be examined, modified, or abandoned, while knowledge is advanced, understanding improved. But it is not welcomed these days, which is, sadly, a most unscientific situation.


Posted by: rahdigly at August 14, 2007 8:29 PM
Comment #229422

Despite your insult, I’ll respond here:

Serious scientists should welcome criticism, and many have in the past. Hypotheses are to be examined, modified, or abandoned, while knowledge is advanced, understanding improved. But it is not welcomed these days, which is, sadly, a most unscientific situation.

This is another red herring. Building of consensus and the existence of consensus is not about avoiding legitimate criticism and avoiding new hypotheses. The existence of consensus is a recognition that there is general agreement based on the evidence, that some hypotheses have been examined and rejected, and that other hypotheses have been examined and found worthy.

You and Fox would have us believe that science is being dogmatic, rejecting evidence contrary to what is the desired belief, but that’s not what’s happening. Heck, we’ve even seen an example in the situation that sparked this thread: previously-accepted evidence was found to be in error in a way that moved counter to the prevailing wisdom. Did the scientific community reject this information dogmatically as you seem to want us to believe? Nope. Experts in the field looked at the new information, examined it, found it to be worthwhile, and modified the existing understanding based on the new valid information.

Unfortunately for you, this new information turned out not to be all that significant - when averaged with all of the data that didn’t need to be adjusted, the newly-adjusted data had hardly any effect on the overall understanding. Sadly, you don’t see this as evidence that the process works. Instead, you seem to see this as part of some conspiracy. It’s not; the process worked, but the effect wasn’t as profound as you’d like it to be.

Fox would also like you to believe that legitimate anti-Global Warming research is being rejected dogmatically. Again, it is unfortunate for you that this is just not true. 100% of the legitimate original peer-reviewed research over the past few years has found evidence in line with what would be found if Global Warming is true. No legitimate original peer-reviewed research over the past few years has found evidence that says that the climate isn’t changing, or that it’s not mostly because of human influence. What science actually rejects is pseudo-science, efforts to reintroduce obsolete data, and politically-inspired confusion.

It’s a lot like the Evolution debate and even the question of whether the moon landing was faked. In one corner is the accumulation of facts. In the other corner is a group that for some reason wants reality to be different than it is. The second group spends a lot of time and money to make it look like there is actually a debate on the merits of the scientific evidence, and they successfully fool a lot of people.

You fell for it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 14, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #229443
You and Fox would have us believe that science is being dogmatic, rejecting evidence contrary to what is the desired belief, but that’s not what’s happening. Heck, we’ve even seen an example in the situation that sparked this thread: previously-accepted evidence was found to be in error in a way that moved counter to the prevailing wisdom. Did the scientific community reject this information dogmatically as you seem to want us to believe?

Two things about this.

1. From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that’s scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn’t do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.

Second, the UN abolished the medieval warm period. Here’s how they did it:

• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn’t say so).

• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN’s 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there’s more carbon dioxide in the air: it’s plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.

• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked “Censored Data”.

• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic “red noise”.

The large, full-colour “hockey-stick” was the key graph in the UN’s 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household. Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.

So no, they do not always change once data is found to be wrong.

2) From a review of the book Of Moths and Men

The question Hooper sets out to answer is why such a shoddy piece of scientific research was so readily accepted by the scientific community and allowed to attain iconic status in evolutionary biology. Her answer: because scientists wanted to believe it. Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith. Hooper’s meticulous research provides a fascinating insight into the fallibility of scientists - after all, as she points out, they are only human.

Hooper’s absorbing account of a flawed if not fraudulent experiment reveals an all-too-human side to scientists that will annoy professionals and enthral laypeople in equal measure. One thing is clear, though - science is much more than a collection of objective facts and figures. Ambition, jealousy, and megalomania are all part of this complex equation.

Does this mean that global warming is not occuring? No. Does this mean that humans aren’t increasing the effects of global warming? No. But it does mean some of the things that the ‘believers’ have been saying for years to get people worked up are not accurate. And in doing so, in not admitting that there was an error like the UN has done, it puts a shadow on many more of the ‘consensus’ kind of facts.

And your assertion that ‘the scientific community will not reject data dogmatically’ is not valid, the ‘scientific community’ are made up of humans and yes, it does occur as with the peppered moths not very long ago. We all should look critically at even scientists if what they are saying doesn’t add up.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 15, 2007 12:01 AM
Comment #229445

Rahdigly-
Consensus is a fancy word for people agreeing about something. It’s not unscientific to agree about something, or for a scientific principle to become the consensus theory when it holds up well under rigorous testing, which this has.

I think I made a bit of a typo in that paragraph you put up, and its an important one that needs correction. I meant to say that there is not one set of laws of physics for one group, and another for the next. Science, by necessity, seeks consensus. But it’s not the consensus of politics, which comes about when people make a choice to agree about something. It’s the consensus of expertise, where observation, experimentation and consideration by those proficient in the field leads those experts to share a common assesment.

Because reality works in an integral way, with one set of laws governing behavior, you can use the evidence to narrow down the hypotheses until you get your best, most supportable theory lined up, if anything presents itself in that fashion.

Now he talks about nothing being settled by computer predictions, but hell, what is so unscientific about using models and predictions based on principles derived scientifically to anticipate the behavior of complex systems? They test car designs in computers now. That’s some pretty complex stuff. Your weather forecasts now have greater accuracy because of advances in modelling. They predicted the El-Nino in 1997 in advance of it. It’s hard work, but to call it unscientific is incorrect.

There must be and should be a difference between political consensus and scientific consensus. Unfortunately, I don’t think you grasp it. I think you grab onto whatever theory fits your political consensus that Global Warming is a liberal hoax, regardless of whether those theories are anywhere near consistent with one another. The consensus with Global Warming squares with itself. The Contrarians bounce from Cosmic Rays to direct solar irradiation, to Milankovich cycles to whatever. You take local information and treat it like it’s global in scope, take hundredths of a degree’s different, and try and make the claim that 1934 is hotter than 1998. You can’t seem to hash out one explanation, or at least one dominant one that explains what Anthropogenic Global Warming theory does. Until then, AGW retains the top spot.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 15, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #229464

Rhinehold quoted: “Once it had been cited enough times, it became an irrefutable article of faith.”

If it was irrefutably, how did it come to be refuted? Such lack of logic and reason deserve not the price of the book nor a pondering upon the quote so blatantly rendered illogical by a prejudiced agenda.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2007 2:25 AM
Comment #229515

Stephen D.,

Well said.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #229520

All one has to do to understand where Eric is coming from is to refer to all the peer reviewed science journal references he made.

Here I’ll list them to make it easier;

Posted by: muirgeo at August 15, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #229539

phx8,

Eric,
Unless you intended to intentionally mislead people, you might want to retract this article and rewrite it. You are passing on misinformation that a minor adjust in US temperatures means Global Warming is not happening:

The problem here is that there are many who are trying to intentionally mislead us. I am merely trying to help you, and others, to see how you have accepted a lie as the truth.

I find it instructive to note that when ‘minor adustments’ support realclimate’s agenda they claim it is incredible and dramatic proof of their arguments. Had the data been revised the other way I’m sure it would have been incredibly important and final proof of their claims.

You might notice that realclimate is referenced in my article.

I can’t say it better than this commenter:

We don’t control the temperature or climate, but a lot of folks want to use temperature and climate to control us. ~extrememortman.com

Posted by: esimonson at August 15, 2007 9:04 PM
Comment #229540

This Ugly Truck won’t sell. Eric just exposed some more rust and Reinhold is keeping count of all the rust and dents.

“DON’T YOU BUYYY NO UGLY TRUCK!!!”

Posted by: tomd at August 15, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #229543
I am merely trying to help you, and others, to see how you have accepted a lie as the truth.

Leading by example again, eh? Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 15, 2007 9:27 PM
Comment #229544

eric,

I find it instructive that every time I read one of your shrill articles I find little substance. Perhaps you are not embarassed by that, but that’s ok — we’re embarassed for you.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 15, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #229589

In 2006, while the Global Warming issue was being hotly contested, and Democrats were screaming about Big Oil and the burning of fossil fuels, they were also pandering to these same groups for campaign donations.
Richard Rhodes in the Independent column points this out in terms of Big Oil.
However, Democrats were also passing the hat to Big Coal, taking in more than $101,150 just in personal campaign contributions alone to individual Federal candidates. This total was for the 2006 cycle and does not even include the amounts given to the DNC itself.

The candidates included:

Democratic House of Representatives:

Alan Mollahan (D-WV)
Ben Chandler (D-KY)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Mike Doyle (D-PA)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
John Salazar (D-CO)
John Murtha (D-PA)
Bud Cramer (D-AL)
Mike Rogers (D-AL)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
John Dingell (D-MI)

Democratic Senate:

Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Evan Bayh (D-IN
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

How about a round of applause for these fossil-fuel loving Dems?

JD

Posted by: JD at August 16, 2007 1:30 AM
Comment #229609

JD,

There is no doubt that our government is beholden to corporate money. I hope you also see it as a Republican problem.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 16, 2007 8:39 AM
Comment #229616

Eric-
You claim it was intentional, but you make no such substantive case for a deliberate fraud. Where’s your conspiracy here? Names, events, evidence of this crime? You don’t have it. Just the insinuation, because, of course, liberals are moral degenerates, and can only be expected to lie.

That joke aside, scientists can make mistakes like everybody else. Some mistakes are big, some aren’t. This is a minor correction. I know you believe that I’m simply minimalizing the issue, but that doesn’t take much effort when the results of revising the numbers is so miniscule. We’re talking three hundredths of a degree difference between the average temperature in the US in 1934 and that of 1998. Worse yet for the contrarian, 1998’s temperatures have already been topped. They’re literally living in the past in terms of the warmest temperatures ever recorded.

The beauty of the Real Climate site is that it’s run by people for whom climate is more than just a bunch of talking points. It’s run by people who understand the scientific underpinnings. We’re not expecting folks to subscribe to faith-based climatology, we’re providing people with the evidence necessary to give credibility to our views. This is far superior a way of doing things than the Contrarian’s method of throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

tomd-
The myth here is that without understanding the basics of the science, anybody can judge climatology from the gut. Going back to the truck, though, if you go to a dealership without a basic knowledge of how a car works, and just work off your intuition, you’re at a disadvantage, because there are many salesman out there who are all too willing to take advantage of people’s ignorance to shape that intuition.

It says something that the commercial in question is for a dealership. Don’t you buy no ugly truck! Ugliness, appearance is emphasized. What about utility, though, performance?

Not every vehicle that does a good job is a work of art, aesthetically pleasing. Quantum Physics’s standard model is known for being a mathematically inelegant theory, full of ad hoc tricks, but it’s also known for being dead on accurate in terms of describing most subatomic and atomic behavior.

The math behind current climate theory is actually much more elegant than that. It’s modelling the real world, in all its complexities and feedbacks, that presents the difficulties. Some guy might bring up Boltzmann’s black bodies, but those are hypothetical solid objects giving off heat by radiation, not planets with atmospheres around them complicating things with convection and greenhouse effect scattering.

With those, any valid model gets complicated. If you don’t include all the feedbacks and all the complexities, you don’t have a working model. Might look beautiful, but it won’t have a running engine. If you just use blackbody radiation, our average global temperature is just below zero degrees Farenheit.

The system itself, due to these complexities and feedbacks is sensitive to small disturbances, both locally and globally. When contrarians come across with arguments about solar irradiance and orbital changes, they often do so without realizing how slight these changes really are. They question the role of carbon dioxide because of lags in temperature rises, but don’t realize that:

1) Nobody’s said CO2 has to be in the drivers seat every time there’s a change.

and

2) Like many features in climate, it can be a driver and a passenger, sometimes change roles during the course of a trip.

They also talk about cycles, relying on people’s intuitive picture of long graceful cycles of climate change. What they don’t realize is that actual records of these events indicate much more sudden and violent changes. The Sahara, about 8000 years ago, dried out from a lush grassland to a burning desert in the space of just about 200 years. The end of the last ice age may have even come in the space of a single decade, bringing about 16 degrees Farenheit worth of change. When the climate changes, it rarely does so gently.

Climate, as we’ve found, has inherent uncertainties attached. The notion that Climate Change theory is ineffective because it doesn’t make precise predictions just ignores the truth about atmospheric behavior, which is that its a textbook chaotic system. Changes below the threshold of what we can measure can throw off a prediction.

However, all is not lost: chaos theory and its successors have also demonstrated that while these systems do not yield clean, perfect determinant predictabiliy, there are outcomes more likely than others.

It’s also helped that climate scientists have learned more about the role of different elements of weather in the climate and its changes. We see and understand more of the parts of the engine, and the fuel that drives it.

What the models say, though, is that warming, with the rise in carbon dioxide, is inevitable. What’s unknown is how much we will continue to contribute, or just where things will land in the range of outcomes. Also difficult to predict will be the changes in local climate. One thing is clear, though: we will be pumping more energy into systems, and extremes of precipitation will get larger.

They’ve actually run the data from past records through the current models trying to see how well actual correspondence to climate reality is, and they’ve come out pretty close to the real thing. These people do know what they’re doing.

It surprises me just how many of these critics out there are suggesting things like rises in solar irradiance and orbital shifts are responsible for the current upwards trend. In truth, it’s believed the orbital shifts are working against the current trend, and the solar irradiance change is insufficient to explain the rise in temperature.

JD-
The danger in using this defense is that over 80% of their contributions went to Republicans in the last election. The same is true for Oil and Gas. They’re sending our folks contributions to cover their bases. Whether these folks side with those contributing to them is their choice.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2007 10:02 AM
Comment #229671

Stephen,

Republicans are not the ones screaming bloody murder over global warming though, are they? It is obvious that the Democrats are attacking these Corporations, not over global warming, but because they are big Republican supporters. This happened to the tobacco industry and also the beef industry during the Clinton Administration.

The people would be wise that every time the Democrats start screaming crisis about something and attacking those corporations whom they claim are causing the crisis, the people should look to whom those corporations give most of their money. There is nothing more powerful than a National Political Party attempting to destroy corporations who support the opposing Party, if they do not also fork it over to Democrats. The Democrats have always done this. If the Corporations do not begin funneling their money instead to Democratic coffers as has been the case in 2006, they are publicly destroyed. One could very easily call it political extortion, and Democrats are very good at it!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 16, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #229676

JD-
Of course not. But while you’re arguing, with no real conspiracies or evidence of such uncovered, that Democrats are engaged in a political conspiracy with scientists to attack energy companies that don’t contribute to them, we can argue, with plenty of documentation of contributions that the contrarians are in large part in bed with the Oil Companies, and the Republicans are there with them.

Appealing to the case of big Tobacco isn’t very smart, because after all was said and done, the tobacco companies actually did know their product caused cancer and various health problems, and not only that, but also intentionally did what they could to get people addicted to cigarettes. They spiked the tobacco with chemicals to make it more potent at doing this.

What makes this fact more disturbing, is that many of the junk science people cut their teeth working for Big Tobacco, echoing their talking points, which ultimately turned out to be full of it. The science is there, and it’s solid. It just disrupts the status quo, which you Republicans, and those fossil fuel-reliant companies don’t like.

But lets get back to the financial nitty-gritty: the pattern here is no different than it has been for some time. The Spending habits of the energy companies has remained stable for most of the Republican’s tenure as Congressional Majority. Just look at the graphs for those years, and you’ll see that.

Unfortunately, you’re wrapped up in this whole business of seeing the Democratic Party as an evil serpent strangling the life of the nation. It’s time to relax. We’re not fricking Klingons here, we’re your next door neighbors. We just happen to believe things a little different from you. The malice you accord us is astonishing to those of us who think of ourselves as civil human beings.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2007 8:18 PM
Comment #229707

i agree steven… at least mostly.

perhaps then, given your party’s entirely benign nature, you might afford we willing smokers some of that same tolerance, acceptance, and respect that you implore us to grant your party.

big tobacco is malicious. small tobacco farmers, however, are merely trying to make a living providing what we, the informed and willing smokers, have decided is a lifestyle choice worth the risks. your party wrote the book on the right of making such “lifestyle choices” after all, did they not? i don’t see the democrats attacking sam adams.

stop treating smokers like the plague of the nation, and you would win a lot more sympathy and support when you attack those ‘attacking our children.’

…pardon me for interrupting with this somewhat non-related matter, but the issue of tobacco usage was raised, and you (more or less) defended that status quo of the nascent and burgeoning tobacco intolerance policy.

Posted by: diogenes at August 17, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #229720

diogenes-
What strikes me about the whole smoker’s right thing is the failure to recognize that at base what we’re dealing with really is a health hazard.

There should be limits, within reason, but approaching this as if it’s just a matter of those people’s freedom, ignores the fact that for these people to inhale their nicotine laced fumes, they have to invade other people’s fresh air with it. Those people don’t have a choice when that smoke reaches them. Either they hold their breath, or the choice to breath that stuff in is made for them by the laws of physics.

Given that other people can breath fresh air without taking away from the smoker’s fresh air, while the smoker has to invade somebody else’s fresh air to inhale their smoke, I think the deference should be given to the non-smoker.

I have a relative who is a smoker. They have done their best throughout their life to limit the exposure that others are given by their smoking.

This isn’t about a lifestyle choice. Like George Carlin said, the world lifestyle becomes pretty silly when you realize that Genghis Khan had an active outdoor lifestyle.

This is about a number of things: first, cigarette smoke is literally invasive by its nature. It diffuses in the air so that in any enclosed space, it rapidly permeates the environment whether you like it or not.

Second, it’s been proven to be an actual health-threat for all involved.

Third, and finally, In the computer age, it doesn’t pay to have a lot of charged particulate matter floating around in the air. The computer, more than any other bit of technology, has been one of the main drivers behind company smoking policies.

You talk about the tobacco intolerance policy, but what about the fresh air intolerance policy. Should others have to hold their breath while cigarette smoke drifts into their breathing space from their coworkers? Should they have to share in the health consequences of that person’s choice? Should we just simply let computers, the foundation of our modern economy, get fouled by cigarette smoke?

A lot of effort has gone of late, in our society, into mollycoddling and even celebrating bad habits, on the grounds that these are personal freedoms. We don’t have a real culture of self-denial. The politics and economics of the last few years has played a big part.

Now we have people on this site defending opposition to Global Warming on the grounds that somebody’s going to step in and tell them to do something they don’t like.

The bottom line is that cigarettes are unhealthy for everybody around them, including the smoker. It’s fine if the smoker is willing to take that risk, but does it have to be imposed on others, on even the businesses they are employed by?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2007 8:13 AM
Comment #229723

Stephen,

My point is that this crisis mentality has occurred against nearly every major supporter of the Republican Party.

First it was tobacco and the claims that second-hand smoke kills. They were major donors to the Republican Party, and Dems tried to put them out of business, until tobacco gave the Dems some $6,000,000 in contributions last year. Haven’t heard much about tobacco lately, have we?

Then it was the beef industry and claims that if Republicans were elected everyone’s children would be dying of mad cow disease, and fast food restaurants were poisoning our kids. Try reviewing Barabara Boxer’s speech at the Democratic National Convention during Clinton’s re-election campaign. But Republicans got elected, so where are all the kids dying of mad cow diseaese? Where are the reports of fast food restaurants poisoning all of our kids? What it did do was trash the beef industry, and give chicken, (you ever heard of Tyson chicken a major supporter of the Clintons and the Democratic Party?), a huge surge in market value during the time that the Clintons were raising contributions from them.
There’s a quid pro quo if I ever saw one!

Now, it is the Oil and Coal corporations that are major donors to the Republican Party, and here we go again.

There is plenty of evidence, Stephen. If one were to look at the Republican donor lists it would be easy to predict at whom the next big crisis will be directed!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 17, 2007 9:22 AM
Comment #229727

James Hansen, the nation’s top climate scientist, has responded to the brouhaha that deniers like Eric and rahdigly have tried to whip up.

Basically, while there was a small but noticeable effect on U.S. mean temperatures, the difference on the global mean temperature is around a one-thousandth of a degree, and cannot be seen on a graph.

So Eric and rah are just grasping at straws when data isn’t in their favor.

Again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 17, 2007 10:34 AM
Comment #229759

Lawboy, how is he the top climate scientist? I missed that pagent.

Same old, same old, there can be no debate the world is flat because our best scientist say so … hundreds of years later here we are again.

Right or wrong has not be the point here, it is be open to other views.

But alas their cannot be other views … it has been decided!

But let’s leave the world a better place than inherited. At least I think everyone here agree on that.

Posted by: Honest at August 17, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #229763

stephen,

so then, the short answer to my question (affording smokers some of that same tolerance, acceptance, and respect)… is simply “no.”

Posted by: diogenes at August 17, 2007 4:45 PM
Comment #229767

Stephen,

Why do Democrats want to take over the medical profession and have government-run medicine?

Because 70% of the campaign contributions from the American Medical Association goes to Republicans. That’s why!

Do we hear medical care crisis??????
Solution_ Let Democratic-run government take it over. How convenient!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 17, 2007 5:16 PM
Comment #229780
there can be no debate the world is flat because our best scientist say so

No, there has been a debate. However, the actual evidence all falls on one side of the debate, so the debate has been won. It’s possible that new evidence will be found in the future that changes the balance, but there’s no sign of it yet.

Nice diversion, though, pretending that insulting one scientist is a replacement for actual scientific evidence.

Did you even look at the evidence involved before going on a rant about “right or wrong” and “no debate”? I doubt it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 17, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #229785

“Honest“‘s post is another example of what the Newsweek article discussed: I presented a link that presented data showing how strong the evidence is, that a perceived weakness wasn’t real. I wasn’t saying that Global Warming is real because James Hansen said so, but that he is a relevant expert presenting valid data that demonstrates it to be true.

So, what was the response?

It wasn’t addressing the data (because the data is so weak on the deniers’ side). It was whining that about how unfair it is that scientific evidence led us to a conclusion and introducing an ad hominem attack against Dr. Hansen.

Honest, if you believe that Dr. Hansen’s experience and history don’t make him the top climate scientist, that’s fine. Dr’s Hansen’s argument is solid based on the content, not based on his resume. However, he’s undoubtably a top climate scientist, and the data that he presents is solid.

Unfortunately, this is all we get from the deniers; complaints that science came to a valid conclusion based on solid evidence, illogical attacks, and an unfounded belief that science should not determine what reality is if they don’t want reality to be the way it is. Do they really believe that solid scientific conclusions should be held as uncertain due to nothing but political concerns?

It’s no better and not much different from denying that we landed on the moon.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 17, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #229792

LawnBoy, what scientist is NOT open for debate of their conclusions from the data? Name one. You cry denier, when you deny having debate. I believe it is individuals like you that have bought into the story overtly so, that you have no way to back into a dialog.

The example I set is not one of your definition, its one that this blog/web page puts forth in its purpose.

But keep killing the messenger, it obviously fits with your view of the world.

Posted by: Honest at August 17, 2007 10:32 PM
Comment #229795
LawnBoy, what scientist is NOT open for debate of their conclusions from the data? Name one.

I don’t understand the question - it seems that you’re challenging me to agree with what I’ve already said.

no way to back into a dialog.

What do you mean? I’m quite happy to have a dialog about the issue. However, that dialog shouldn’t start with the inaccurate presumption that fairness is a precept of science, that failed hypotheses should be entertained if people really wish they represented reality.

But keep killing the messenger, it obviously fits with your view of the world.

What debate are you watching? Your rant here has nothing to do with what I’ve said.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 17, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #229799

JD-
I don’t know why you insist on a shakedown. The Clinton administration actually agreed on a program with the food industry, called the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (or HACCP) program. Basic idea is if you set up conditions right along the process, using scientific analysis to create the right control points, you can prevent contamination, and keep what contamination there is from becoming more of a problem.

The real question is, what evidence do you have of the intensified scrutiny being due to some shakedown scheme? Do you have real evidence, or is this just a gut feeling of yours?

It’s easy to demonize people rather than acknowledge that they are honestly concerned about such issues. Unfortunately for you, that alienates them from understanding you and your point of view as well.

If the Democrats really wanted the money, why wouldn’t they do what the Republicans leadership did and simply sell themselves out for it? Wouldn’t that be easier?

As for healthcare crisis, I can tell you as one of the uninsured just how bad things have gotten over time for many of us. I once was able to visit a doctor regularly. Now, its a rare occasion. The advice for patients nowadays is simple: don’t get sick. Trust me on this: People aren’t complaining about healthcare because they’re trying to get money for the Democrat’s campaign coffers. Nor are they talking about contaminated food for that reason.

You really don’t understand: people are worried about these issues of their own accord. It doesn’t take marching orders or talking points from the DNC to get this ball rolling, the policies for healthcare have gotten sufficiently out of control that Companies are actually asking for some kind of socialized healthcare.

diogenes-
We’re talking tolerance acceptance and respect for the smokers, or for their habit? I’m pretty close to the smoker I know, in terms of family relationship, but that smoker heads outside to smoke, rather than smoking in the house. Making it personal is not very useful. Let’s not be politically correct about smoking: it’s not a very clean habit. What we’re looking for is not to make these people’s lives a living hell. Instead, the purpose is to maintain a healthy environment for others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2007 11:48 PM
Comment #229818

SD,

I am a smoker. I understand that it is a dirty habit. I also understand that others don’t wish to inhale my smoke.

That said, how many parts per trillion is too much.
My “dirty” habit is legal, yet I am being pushed farther and farther away from the mainstream to indulge that habit, and I am being grossly overtaxed for “education” programs, while the government is still supporting tobacco farmers with my money.
These “education” programs are touted to keep children from smoking, and the high tax on cigarettes is touted as a means to keep children from buying tobacco.
Selling tobacco to children under the age of eighteen is already illegal, and theoretically we expect anyone over the age of eighteen to be able to make some pretty important choices on their own.

I will admit I don’t enjoy the lingering smell of cigarettes in an enclosed area either. While I don’t mind going outside for a smoke, I also don’t enjoy being FORCED out into extreme climatic conditions, yet now I am expected to do so.
No accommodations have been made for those that smoke. I am expected to just bend over for those that don’t.

That, my friend, makes it personal.

Posted by: Rocky at August 18, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #229862

Lawnboy, cut your own lawn … go back and find the statements you have made that make it clear you are open to dialog and debate. The post them. Otherwise you are wrong.

Posted by: Honest at August 18, 2007 10:19 PM
Comment #229867

Honest,

No.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 18, 2007 10:50 PM
Comment #229869

Stephen,

Perhaps, you are not aware that the National Restaurant Association is one of the top ten individual donors to the Republican Party. Did you not go back to the speech Barbara Boxer made at the Democratic National Convention making accusations that restaurants were going to poison our kids if Republicans got elected?
I suppose you didn’t!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 18, 2007 11:07 PM
Comment #229916

JD-
Hundreds were sickened, and a number died in the E-Coli Outbreak that was part of the the impetus for such things. The problem was very real, and so was the solution, which I had an opportunity to experience as worker in one of my college’s dining halls. We had to scrub down a whole bunch of surfaces, keep food very hot or very cold, and keep our hands washed. You can make it a political issue, or you can make it a practical issue.

On the fundraising advantage of the Republicans, I wouldn’t be surprised. Your logical construction, though, is meaningless unless you can prove that massive conspiracy you’re conjecturing, which you can’t. I understand why you’re using that logical construction, because otherwise you have to admit that with one special interest after another, the Republicans have been up to their neck in that money.

Your party set up, openly, an operation intended to concentrate both the lobby power and the lobbying dollars in your party. Mysteriously enough, all this industry friendly legislation and rhetoric comes out of your party.

Much of the fundraising impetus behind the victory in 2006 came from the netroots, came from people. We’re not pure of corporate money by any means, but we’re not as beholden to it, and our philosophy does not rationalize giving the reins of government to business the way the Republicans do. Corporations aren’t fools. Their job is give shareholder value, and according to the modern business philosophy, it’s externalizing as many costs as possible.

This, though, is where the problem is: At some point there’s a limit to how much we can accommodate business interests and maintain a government that still serves the public interests. It has become a somewhat dubious article of faith that only by working within the market will the government properly serve those interests. However, in any nation that depends upon the rule of law the government must be capable of stepping in against business interests, both in will and in deed.

Otherwise, you have the fractious interests of thousands of businesses and hundreds of sectors going in different directions. We talk as if business interests and economic interests are all the same, but really, everybody has different interests, and the disorganization and dysfunction of our governments relationship with business and other concerns is a result. The Republicans haven’t diminished the power of government, just channeled it into all kinds of corporate welfare, and conflicting business regulations.

Only when we approach business with a clear-headed approach, with one that understands that the government has to play an inhibitory and managing role, and that Businesses don’t necessarily need to be pumped up with billions of corporate welfare to be successful

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2007 12:00 PM
Comment #229919

Rocky-
Smokers are beginning to fall in an unfortunate gap, and it all relates to that fundamental truth: it’s a dirty, unhealthy habit. I say that with a smoker in my family.

The best thing we can do is to encourage and sponsor quitting. I know from experience how difficult it is for some to quit. As long as we simply indulge the status quo, we’re letting the health problems continue, and we’re letting that industry win.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #229930

Stephen,

“As long as we simply indulge the status quo, we’re letting the health problems continue, and we’re letting that industry win.”

My point was that America should either make tobacco illegal, stop subsidising tobacco farmers, and actually force all of us to quit, or make accomodations for smokers.

Despite the fact that smoking is a dirty, unhealthy habit, it is still legal, and frankly I feel that smokers are being hosed for no other reason other than politically, making tobacco illegal would be a hot potato that no one would touch.

Posted by: Rocky at August 19, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #229941

Brace Yourself folks!

Police are now clashing with global warming activists turning violent to force airlines to fly less! Surprise! Surprise!

The Airline Industry just became the global warming activists’ next big target.

I bet you can’t guess what industry gives 65% of their individual donations to Republicans! I’ll give you three guesses!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 19, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #229965

Here are some facts:
1. The overall trend of global temperatures have been increasing, with a direct correlation to the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emission increases.
2. Equipment used in measuring these temps (along with many other things) have become quite sophisticated, and are calibrated frequently. The little four-legged wooden weather station with mercury thermometers are a thing of the past.
3. Rigid controls are placed on any weather stations which submit official climate data so that they conform or are excepted from the total data. (I know, because I worked in environmental science for years, and built several weather stations myself.)
4. A reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and use of fossil fuels will benefit humanity and the planet overall. There is no down side to these reductions.
5. The only benefits to continued use of fossil fuels and continued greenhouse gas emissions will be to businesses and the governments of the oil-producing nations. It’s short-sighted and destructive. We should all agree on a long-term approach of reducing the emissions and becoming independent of foreign oil by developing alternative, safe, energy sources.

Posted by: Cole at August 20, 2007 12:03 AM
Comment #229979

Cole,

If only you could have found a way to build a nuclear powered jet instead of weather stations, perhaps environmentalists would not be taking it upon themselves to beat policemen in the streets trying to get to the jet hangers of the major airlines today! How unfortunate!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Comment #229992

Scientific evidence
What is the evidence for this direct link between hot temperature and aggressive behavior? It comes from several very different kinds of studies. Social psychologists have shown in laboratory experiments that simply being in a hot room makes people feel angrier than being in a comfortable room. Aggressive thoughts also increase. Other laboratory research has shown that hot temperatures can, when coupled with provocation, increase a person’s willingness to hurt another person. Other research supporting the link between heat and violence shows that regional differences in violent crime rates are related to regional differences in ambient temperature. Many studies—some going back to crime records in several European countries gathered in the last century—show that hotter regions of a country tend to have higher violent crime rates. Interestingly, nonviolent crimes do not tend to show this same hot region increase in criminality. A study in the April 1996 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70, No. 4, 740–756 on regional differences in violent crime rates in large U.S. cities ruled out many other potential causes of heat effect on violent crime, such as poverty, population size and regional cultures supportive of violence. The study found that U.S. cities with hotter climates have higher violent crime rates.
By Craig Anderson, PhD, University of Missouri at Columbia, and Brad Bushman, PhD, Iowa State University

Sorry, guys! I shouldn’t have blamed the environmentalists for their violent behavior! Obviously, it was due to Global Warming!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 20, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #230009

“Smokers are beginning to fall in an unfortunate gap, and it all relates to that fundamental truth: it’s a dirty, unhealthy habit. I say that with a smoker in my family.”

the same could be said of a great many habits and freedoms. nevertheless, they are permissible, as they should be. you are crossing the line. you take the smoking - and i’ll see your smoking, and raise you driving, drinking, and fast food. i’m sure, if you don’t care for any of those vices, we will eventually stumble upon something which you value which i consider dirty, and in which you (for your own health) should not be allowed to indulge.

“The best thing we can do is to encourage and sponsor quitting.”

that, if you believe in the freedom to choose for oneself, is the only thing you should do.

many freedoms necessitate risk to others in some form, when exercised… and mitigating that risk often means stifling the freedom. you wish to speak, but i may be offended by what you say. you wish to drive, and yet i may be injured by your vehicle, my lungs may be harmed by the emissions from your exhaust. etc. but you know all this, so why arbitrarily choose smoking to crusade against?

when someone blows a lungful of smoke in your face, i’ll stand beside you in your condemnation of that behavior. when someone is standing twenty feet away, and merely indulging in a habit you happen to find distasteful, disgusting, or just dumb… i shall stand beside them in telling you where to go.

Posted by: diogenes at August 20, 2007 4:24 PM
Comment #230033

JD-
Your references to “violent environmentalists” do nothing to further the debate or to find any solution. If a few rare occurences of stupidity occur over some issues in society, as they do over many issues thru history, it says nothing about the overall position of one side or the other in the argument.
If anything, very nearly 100% of all environmentalists are very peaceful in nature. Citing very few exceptions to this just evades the issue. I’m positive that I could easily point out examples of conservatives turning violent and nasty over pretty much every issue out there.
So why not just stick to the debate at hand and refrain from going off the track with the nonsense? I’d be happy to debate real, pertinent facts with you.

Posted by: Cole at August 20, 2007 6:55 PM
Comment #230331

Cole,

Perhaps, my post does not add to the discussion of whether or not the Global Warming issue is, or is not, a lost cause. However, it should certainly give liberals another reason why Global Warming must be slowed or stopped if we are to survive as a human race.
It is obvious that the reason the Middle East is such a war-torn region is because of Global Warming! The extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and other Middle Eastern regions have had to endure a lifetime of excessively hot weather temperatures.
The studies I posted show a direct correlation between these extremely hot Middle Eastern temperatures that these poor folks have to endure and their tendencies for violent behavior. With the overwhelming scientific evidence that I have presented on this blog, August 20, 2007 at 1:13pm, it should be accepted by all, and completely undisputed that the actions of the Muslim extremists in these regions are caused at least in part, and perhaps, exclusively by the extreme temperatures and weather patterns of Global Warming. I believe the overwhelming scientific evidence certainly suggests this, and anyone would have to be an idiot to disagree!!!

JD

Posted by: JD at August 22, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #230621

JD -
But if this were the case, would we not see the same level of violence all around the world in the same climate zones?
As for “Global Warming” being the culprit, it would not fall in with the long history of constantly warm temperatures in that area. Global Warming refers, as I’m sure you know, to the overall temperature index of the planet and the effects on all of the ecosystems thereon. It’s all about the 1 or 2 degree (C) increases over a specific span of years which are supposedly or apparently attributable to humans’ involvement with the planet’s climatic patterns after the industrial revolution. A 1 or 2 degree increase in the area of the middle east is probably not sufficient to affect the demeanor of the population.
So, if heat makes people angry, then they were predisposed to be angry by their location (vis a vi climate) alone, without the effect of global warming. They would have been angry in the 1400’s, the 500’s, and even year 1.
Now, a Democrat (or Republican) MAY be pissed of if they own a home on the beach near, say, the Bay of Fundy, when that home is partially submerged from the melting of the polar ice caps as the result of Global Warming.

Posted by: Cole at August 24, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #230689

Cole,

I was not really saying that Global Warming was actually the cause of violence in the Middle East. I was being facetious. But, at the same time I was demonstrating how scientific evidence can be used to promote just about any hypothesis that its findings support. Even the hypothesis that the people of the Middle East are so violent because of the environmental extremes in which they live. According to the science I presented, it would be very logical and perhaps could even gain a scientific consensus that global weather extremes may very well have pushed Muslim extremists in the Middle East over the top, thus causing this extreme violence. My science definitely supports that. But, does it mean that it is absolute truth? That is for scientific debate. Much as is the subject of the cause of Global Warming, and Global Warming itself.

JD

Posted by: JD at August 25, 2007 9:00 PM
Comment #230716

JD,

“According to the science I presented”

You see, therein lies the problem.
You never “present” actual science.
What you do present is, at best, opinion, rumour, and innuendo, with nothing to back it up.

Where are your sources?
Where is the proof that what you write is true?

If these “truths” that you claim as incontrovertible are actual fact, please feel free to share with us the the links to the sources of your wisdom, so we can all be enlightened.

Posted by: Rocky at August 26, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #230929

By Craig Anderson, PhD, University of Missouri at Columbia, and Brad Bushman, PhD, Iowa State University

I did, in fact, list the scientists who performed the scientific studies from which my evidence was derived. These are not light weights. They are PhDs! My theories, though not their specific conclusions, are supported completely by the evidence of their findings. This is why a consensus can be very misleading. Scientists can heap all kinds of theories and hypotheses from just a simple experiment with conclusive evidence, just as I did, and claim that the evidence does, factually, support their claims. Science is not factually accurate, however, until a theory or hypothesis can be proven completely. And that has not been done conclusively in the case of man causing global warming.

JD

Posted by: JD at August 28, 2007 9:14 PM
Post a comment