Reality in juxtaposition

It bears repeating, (because the GW lies are repeated over and over), that the global warming scaremongering goes far beyond the provable science.

First the left's perspective:

Leading Australian Scientist Tim Flannery on Global Warming and the Worsening Dangers of Climate Change Denial

A group of scientists in Britain are warning global warming could wipe out more than half the earth's species in the next few centuries...

Then the perspective of reality:
Climate is too complex for accurate predictions

Climate change models, no matter how powerful, can never give a precise prediction of how greenhouse gases will warm the Earth, according to a new study.

Fear mongering is not science.

The climate changes. This is the nature of reality. In fact the climate is perfectly capable of changing without our help. It has changed before and it will change again. This should be elementary logic and yet there is a propaganda campaign afoot which has made great strides in remolding reality for millions of people who now believe that using their toaster is making the earth warmer.

A Propaganda War

The left knows brainwashing. They believe in the efficacy of propaganda. When they say that Western Civilization is destroying the earth they are attempting to create a lever that allow them to move the world and finally achieve victory over the existing 'hegemonic' ecosystem-destroying economic order.

Part of the illogical presupposition employed is the idea that the climate is changing in unprecedented ways, never before seen, such that our impending doom is just around the corner. I repeat, this is not science, it is propaganda.

Suddenly every natural disaster becomes an unnatural disaster that can be blamed on human action. Sin has entered the world and it just so happens that environmental sin and the sins of capitalism are one in the same. Driving cars, building houses, and making consumer products...

The truth is that climate models are not the same as reality. Especially when the data itself could be compromised. Many of the stations that have provided historical temperature data in the U.S. may have been compromised by encroaching urban development. Just take a look at these sites and the explanation of

Published works by Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, Dev Nyogi of Purdue University, and Georg Taylor of Oregon State University have demonstrated that a significant number of USHCN and other weather stations used in the climate record have some significant, and in some cases severe measurement biases near the thermometers in these climate stations of record. There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters within inches of the sensor, and sensors being located in the middle of large areas of asphalt/concrete and directly attached to buildings all in violation of standard published NOAA practices for temperature measurement. None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers. See the Odd Sites page for examples of these types of issues with USHCN stations.

This website exists as a repository of such information to compile a list of stations with issues and a list of stations that are issue free. Knowing this will help produce better data and hence better climate predications.

In short, the issue of global warming has been distorted into a propaganda campaign to promote the goals of global liberalism. And as such it has ceased to be an issue of science.

Posted by Eric Simonson at October 28, 2007 8:23 PM
Comment #237158
I repeat, this is not science, it is propaganda

Oh! He repeated it. It must be true. No one ever repeats someone unless it’s absolutely true. Not even Eric Simonson.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #237160

Let’s see, 98 doctors say may child has flu, and 2 say she is faking it to stay home from school. As a parent, I will go with the 98 doctors every time.

Most scientists agree the statistics and models require serious investments is curtailing greenhouse gases. The few who say we don’t have to spend on this, since, the models and statistics have an error factor built in of perhaps 2%, are like the doctors who say my child is faking it.

I will go with the great majority of scientists, and the growing number of converted skeptics who now agree, the evidence, while guaranteed, is overwhelmingly convincing. Time to act.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2007 9:33 PM
Comment #237162

Eric, it science. Probability and statistical modeling is science. Without this kind of science, we would never have traveled to the moon, be able to budget our economy, or allow new medicines on to the market. Probability and statistics can NEVER prove anything, by definition. But, its correlations can have very high degrees of reliability, validity, and confidence.

Probability and statistics demonstrates that over infinite trials of flipping a coin, the coin will land on heads and tails 50% of the time. According to you, we shouldn’t believe that because no one has ever infinitely flipped a coin to test this probability and statistics model of chance.

Ignorance is an excellent excuse for suffering its consequences.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 28, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #237164

I love the rhetorical techniques here. Use text of “Fear mongering is not science.” to link to a political article that is in no way by itself scientific, and use the non-scientific nature of this article to call the real science into question. After all the article isn’t scientific, so of course nothing that agrees with the article could be scientific!

Beautiful guilt by association! And not a logical thought in the piece!

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2007 9:43 PM
Comment #237165

“In short, the issue of global warming has been distorted into a propaganda campaign to promote the goals of global liberalism.”
Eric do you have any information that you can share with the rest of us on who exactly is leading this global conspiracy of scientist and their reasons for doing so? Im wondering if when the economy collapses due to these unknown liberal plotters will they not feel the effect of the collapse? Can you point us towards these liberal conspirators by name or if its top secret can you get someone at the conservative movement headquarters to release their initials? I know its hard for the conspirascy buffs to divulge any accurate information as I have tried with many conservative friends and all I can get is “its a liberal plot”, “its those damned liberals” and of course “its all the liberals fault”. No matter how much I press for a organization or any information they just wont get up off it. Can you devulge any specific information regarding these dasterdly conspirators at all, anything so we can stop laughing at this whacko theory and move on to intelligent discussion regarding climate change?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 28, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #237168

There definitely is consensus that the earth is warming.

Where the disagreements come are in two specific areas: 1) That this is an altogether bad thing. 2) Humans and their activities have significantly altered the “normal” heating/cooling trends of the earth.

The answer to 1) will depend on where you live and your livlihood. (BTW - Living in Michigan means that warming is not a bad thing. Now I won’t have to plan to move south when I retire.)

The answer to 2) is the serious part of this disagreement. Wise people know that if humans have altered the “normal” trends, then changing to florescent bulbs and riding a bicycle (especially in Michigan)isn’t going to cut it! Yet those who claim that 2) is true usually aren’t willing to take their arguments to their logical conclusions. That they don’t makes me seriously question the “factual-ness” of their premise and arguments.

Eric and David - If humankind has altered the “normal” earth heating/cooling trends we are in SERIOUS trouble. If this is true, don’t make me feel guilty for using ordinary light bulbs and tell me to “cut back” a little. Don’t tell me to reduce my carbon footprint. Don’t recommend taxes to help me to re-pattern my behavior. Tell me exactly what can be done to stop (and perhaps reverse) the process. If humans are at fault, then WHAT IS THE SOLUTION (on a global scale, please)?

Posted by: Don at October 28, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #237172

Actually, I do have a posible solution. If all else fails, we could deploy a large screen in space which cut reflect enough sunlight to reduce it by a percentage or two.

Another possible solution would be to seed the upper atmosphere with Sulfur Dioxide droplets. This would have the same effect as a volcanic eruption, and temporarily reflect some of the incoming energy. SO2 degrades in a few years, so it would not have permanent effects.

But really, I am pretty pessimistic about the ability of humanity to address a large scale, long-term problem like Global Warming. We have too many strikes against us. Nationalism blinds us, and prevents a global, cooperative perspective. The problem itself is gradual, and not easy to see on a day-to-day basis. Changes may take decades to become obvious, at which point it will be very difficult to reverse them. Worse, Global Warming involves understanding science, which is not exactly a strong point for most people.

Oh! If anyone cares… I have identified one member of the liberal propaganda machine:

“The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can.”
Stephen Hawking
ABC News interview (16 August 2006)

Posted by: phx8 at October 28, 2007 11:27 PM
Comment #237173

By the way, I would urge everyone to read the interview, linked by Eric, with Tim Flannery. He was voted Australian of the Year for 2007, and conservative PM John Howard personally presented Tim Flannery with the award.

The title for the second link is misleading. Climate models consistently give a range of warming between 2.5 C and 4.0 C. However, they cannot give a precise number, because of the uncertainty surrounding self-sustaining feedback loops. There are possiblities where those loops could increase the global temperature by 8 C.

No model suggests Global Warming will not occur.

Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #237175


Your quote from Steven Hawkins is an example of the Halo effect. The man is a genius who understands physics. It does not mean that his knowledge carries over into climate science, biology or politics. While his is a valid opinion, it is not quite the show stopper some people think it is.

Re climate change in general, it is a serious issue. Eric is correct in that the actual science tells us that it will not be as terrible as Al Gore lets on. That does not mean we do nothing, but it does mean we are deliberate.

The other fallacy of the clmate debate is the jump to conclusions. Even if you accept that clmate is changing and that humans are contributing, it does not follow that you advocate something like Kyoto, which fails to properly address the problem and costs a lot.

In a realistic middle scenario, humans can adapt.

A good environmentalist does NOT rebuilt all of New Orleans, does NOT subsidize insurance near coasts and rivers and works to establish market prices for water use. These are simple. Not only do they not cost money, the actually save it.

Next comes energy efficiency and conservation. The best way to accomplish this is through a carbon tax. The carbon tax will have an effect. Everything else is just talk. The left prefers talk to action, which is one reason the carbon tax in its pure from is rarely advocated, although to his credit Gore does.

Then there is nuclear technology. We need to use it more. There are risks, but if you consider climate change the big risk, it is worth it.

We will probably be able to stop global warming - at least OUR part, since the globe has warmed and cooled much more and many times w/o us. BUt we will NOT be able to reverse it. There is enough CO2 in the air now to do the job. We can adapt. A much hotter world is very a bad, perhaps indeed catastrophic. A somewhat warmer one may even be better than the one we inherited.

Posted by: Jack at October 29, 2007 12:21 AM
Comment #237177

phx8 does Stephen Hawking have a political ax to grind or a desire to destroy the global economic system to spite the capitalist? If so I will add him to my list of known conspirators which BTW is quite full of names but they all seem to have the same last name …liberal. Im starting to get discouraged in my hunt for these elusive evil schemers. I keep hearing so much about them each and every time this subject is raised but so far have not found a decent lead to pursue.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 29, 2007 12:30 AM
Comment #237178

“Eric is correct in that the actual science tells us that it will not be as terrible as Al Gore lets on.”

Please provide an example.

I can provide numerous examples that the problem is not only bad, it may be much worse than we thought. For example: the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap this past summer was much worse than anyone predicted. The Arctic could be free of ice in summertime by as early as 2013. This is very, very bad news. Another example: water flows from the Amazon have been low this year. Some scenarios show the Amazon dying by 2050. This is very, very bad news.

While no single event can be linked to Global Warming with certainty, some events definitely match what we would expect. For example, the horrendous fires in Greece and California match expectations. As Warming progresses, we would expect to see Mediterranean Climates experience dryer conditions, and become more prone to fires, as the climate conditions experienced at more southerly latitutes, such as the Sahara, move northward.

As for Kyoto, Australia will have an election next month, and most likely the conservatives will lose. The new government will almost certainly ratify Kyoto as one of its first actions.

That will leave the US as the only major country in the entire world not to participate in the Protocol. 175 Parties around the world have ratified it. We will stand alone in our rejection. Personally, I think it exceeds Iraq as being the most shameful thing this country has ever done. As the proverbial 500 lb gorilla of energy consumption, the US could have negotiated for that treaty to take just about any form we wanted to see. Instead, we turned our backs on the world. The Bush administration denied Global Warming. When the evidence became overwhelming, the Bush administration acknowledged it, but refused to actually do anything concrete. Shameful.

No love for Stephen Hawking? No problem. The best resource for information on Global Warming is the IPCC Report. Next month, the fourth report will be issued, a Synthesis Report.

Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2007 12:48 AM
Comment #237180

Ooooh, the liberal conspiracy extends to major corporations as well! Here is a list of the leading conspirators:

Air Products
American Electric Power
Baxter International
Calif. Portland Cement
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
Holcim (USA)
John Hancock Financial Services
Lockheed Martin
Ontario Power Generation
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
United Technologies
Wisconsin Energy

Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2007 1:02 AM
Comment #237181
Your quote from Steven Hawkins is an example of the Halo effect. The man is a genius who understands physics.

This is one of the greatest understatements I have ever read. I have had the privilege of meeting him and hearing him speak twice. Physics is not a narrow field of study as perhaps other subjects are. Furthermore Steven Hawking’s education ranges from Physics to Cosmology and he holds the holds the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a post once held by Sir Issac Newton. Unless he was offering an opinion on Liberal Arts or other non-scientific field of study, I would give great weight to what he says.


Your post seems to be comprised of two statements, which you then suggest your links support. 1. The weather is far too complex for us to understand. 2. The weather has changed in the past therefore we shouldn’t worry about it now.

Scientifically and pragmatically that approach and conclusion is suspect. The following is an excerpt from an article in Scientific American:

For all its hostility to specific scientific findings, the Right never says it opposes science. It understands the cachet in the word. Perhaps Republicans sense what pollsters have known for decades—that the American public is overwhelmingly positive about science and that there is nothing to be gained by opposing a winner. Instead the Right exploits a misconception about science common among nonscientists—a belief that uncertainty in findings indicates fatally flawed research. Because most cutting-edge science—including most research into currently controversial topics—is uncertain, it is dismissed as junk.

This naive understanding of science hands the Right a time-tested tactic. It does not claim that business interests or moral values trump the scientific consensus. Rather rightists argue that the consensus itself is flawed. Then they encourage a debate between the consensus and the extremist naysayers, giving the two apparently equal weight. Thus, Mooney argues, it seems reasonable to split the difference or simply to argue that there is too much uncertainty to, say, ban a suspect chemical or fund a controversial form of research.

Scientific American - Science Abuse - October 2005

Posted by: Cube at October 29, 2007 1:26 AM
Comment #237182

Oh my mistake, His name is Stephen Hawking.

Posted by: Cube at October 29, 2007 1:29 AM
Comment #237183

Good quote from Scientific American. I always loved that magazine. The quote sums up the tactics of the naysayers quite nicely.

As far as New Orleans goes, I think you are correct from a long term perspective. It would make more sense to relocate the city. But there are an awful lot of powerful emotions surrounding the issue. After all, we are talking about a wonderful city that many call “home.” In addition, there are a lot of economic interests driving rebuilding.

It would have taken some very, very bold leadership for relocating the city, backed by a lot of federal money. Unfortunately, we do not have bold, imaginative leadership, and the money has been squandered in Iraq and elsewhere.

Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2007 1:51 AM
Comment #237186


We are on the same side on this one. I am eager to take practical steps, such as a carbon tax, not building on low lying areas, reforestation etc to counter the problem. Some of my frustration is with the politics of climate change. Kyoto is political and redistributive. It will do almost nothing to counter CO2 emissions as demonstrated by the fact that the EU emissions have actually increased slightly more than ours since 2000, despite (because of) Kyoto.

I would match my practical environmental credentials against anybody’s. I do not need to buy carbon offsets, in that hypocritical way celebrities do it. But I have been through too many scare sessions to be fooled again. I remember global cooling. I remember the population bomb. I remember the loss of our forests. Some of these were based on valid concerns, which we were able to address. The acid rain solution, for example, worked brilliantly and at low cost.

IF we really believe what Gore say, we may as well just give up today. There is already enough CO2 in the air to cause the catastrophes. We CAN and should address the problem, but the solutions are among those I outlined.

Carbon taxes
More nukes
Settlement pattern changes (no building on lowland)
Higher energy prices to encourage conservation and alternatives.

These all make sense. They are things we can begin to do today. There is no cause for panic and no value in allowing panic to set in. As I said, if Gore is really right, civilization is doomed already. Drink the beer while you can, buy some defensible mountain property and hunker down for road warrior. But if a more moderate scenario is likely, we can adapt and even prosper in the new world. We humans have adapted to much more severe climate change in the past.

All the protesting, marching, wailing of gnashing of teeth is interesting, but the bottom line is that we can begin to take those steps now. Every time I write about a carbon tax, I get lukewarm support and even some hostility from many putative environmentalists. Some people like the problem better than the solution.

Re New Orleans - too bad. The above sea level parts of the city are already up and running. The rest should be given back to nature. I would not oppose the Feds paying people the assessed value of their property before the floods, but after that we should be done with it. Building below sea level was a mistake. Rebuilding is a crime.

Posted by: Jack at October 29, 2007 4:44 AM
Comment #237187

Global Warming doesn’t exist, it’s just a stupid climate stations recording issue!?!

What a relief it is for everyone!

Thanks you so much Eric.
We’re so lucky to have you to open our eyes on the reality of Global Warming…

May we call you our New Climate Change Prophet?
Well, maybe not. Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 29, 2007 6:31 AM
Comment #237192

There is no cause for panic and no value in allowing panic to set in. As I said, if Gore is really right, civilization is doomed already. Drink the beer while you can, buy some defensible mountain property and hunker down for road warrior. But if a more moderate scenario is likely, we can adapt and even prosper in the new world. We humans have adapted to much more severe climate change in the past.

Thanks for the heads up Jack. I guess I can now go into procrastination mode since there is no real value in immediate change. I can’t afford the mountain property but I have a friend who would love an excuse to drink some beer. He is even making plans to build an enclosed pool he can use all year round here in the midwest. Hell, maybe if our winters get warm enough he can nix the idea of the enclosure and just go with a good heater. Kind of an extra large jacuzzi I guess. He just inherited a lot of money so I guess paying the associated carbon taxes should be no problem if and when they come into fruition. Sounds like a plan to me. Just one less thing I have to worry about. “Don’t worry about nothing and nothing will be alright” Just one of my favorite sayings that seems to apply here.

Posted by: RickIL at October 29, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #237193

Sorry, the above post #237192 was directed at Jack.

Posted by: RickIL at October 29, 2007 10:20 AM
Comment #237194

On the Hawking quote. yes he is a genius who understands physics, but carbon dioxide is not stored in hydrides on the ocean floor. Those are methane clathrates, a means by which gas hydrates are captured in a semi-crystalline form.

His ignorance in this area should not be taken as a comfort to those who would claim he is wrong about global warming, though. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and warming of deep ocean waters will release these stored gasses.

Both sides of this issue are using prejudicial arguments to drive an audience they do not respect to some conclusion they desire.

“Consensus” is not good science. It is pure, mindless, peer pressure. Gathering the facts, measuring the facts, and creating good, repeatable, predictive modeling to explain the facts is good science. The best of this science inexorably favors the conclusion that humans do have an impact on global warming. What “everybody” believes in response to this sort of evidence is simply irrelevant.

From a public policy standpoint we should look at what we want to have happen in response to the climate changes we create. What is the “best” possible climate? It is certainly not the one that existed 500 years ago in the midst of the “little ice age”. One might well argue that the best climate would be one very similar to what we have now, meaning that balancing a cooling mechanism with our current overabundance of warming capacity might actually present a means of stabilizing the climate at a fortuitous level while we deal with the issues of changing our energy production to create energy without putting out greenhouse gasses. To that end the suggestion of putting aerosols of Sulfer Dioxide in the upper atmosphere (as large volcanoes do) could serve us very well. It would not be difficult. Just put sulfer into jet fuel used at high altitude.

From that point we should work hard to reduce the use of fossil fuels and utilize economical ways to sequester CO2. These would include encouraging reforestation, and thinking of ways to encrease our wetlands areas. Prior to the Carboniferous period in Earth’s history the CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere were roughly 13, yes that’s thirteen, times present levels. That carbon was soaked up primarily by wetlands of ferns, palmettos, and palms that became the coal beds we now are digging up and putting back into the air. (Why didn’t the Earth just burn up then? The sun was a little over four percent cooler.)

The Earth has been substantially warmer in the past. We are the decendants of the survivors of those times. The Earth has known ecologial upheavels we could not imagine, such as the poisoning of the atmosphere with, gasp, oxygen by blue-green algae 600 million years ago. What we are doing today comes nowhere close to that. We can’t go merrily along as though there were no problem as many conservatives would have us do. We also can’t devastate the world economy and accept the inherent corruption and stupidity of government imposed “solutions” and world governance. The wars such moves would precipitate would kill more of the ecology than anything we could do by simply being too lazy to act.

The first move is to respect people enough to teach instead of trying to prejudice or panic them into acquiescence to a preferred world view.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 29, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #237195


Amen on New Orleans! It was a wetland. It should be a wetland again. That place alone could soak up billions of tons of CO2 over the next century. It would be wonderful if that place could produce something other than the most corrupt politics in America!

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 29, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #237206
Really, but why isn’t or shouldn’t this be a valid issue for you? Thermometer is in the same place it has been for thirty years… except that now there’s a parking lot below it and an air conditioning unit exhaust blowing nearby.

Oh yeah. Every climate stations recording since the last 100 or less years in the WORLD are ALL located in the US, and now circled by a parking lot and air conditioners. Same for the antartic stations were these irrelevant ice carrots were drilled.

That so Occam’s Razor 101.

PS: I know I’m dumb, but could anyone told me the rational behind building parking lot near glaciers? And I’m not even talking about installing air conditioners near a fresh big pile of ice?…

Posted by: Philippe 'what do you understand in WORLD climate is not limited to US?' Houdoin at October 30, 2007 6:29 AM
Comment #237207

What happened to last comments, Eric’s one I just replied to in particular?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2007 6:32 AM
Comment #237213

#1. We now know the NASA temperature calculation was wrong.
#2. $750,000 bought a NASA scientists support.
#3. Nobody, not even the great Stephen Hawking, can predict the effect of percipitation on their models.
#4. Nobody can tell me what the normal temperature of the earth is suppose to be!
#5. It was actually warmer in the 1930’s.
#6. Consensis is not science. If they have proof they don’t have to take a poll.
#7. We now know that florocarbons did not destroy the ozone.
#8. What global warming predictions made 10 years ago have occurred? 5 years ago?
#9. If Al Gore is that afraid of global warming, why doesn’t he act like it is a big deal? Several BIG homes, jet flights, big cars. Come on now, open your eyes!
#10. YOU ARE NOT THAT POWERFUL. The earth has it’s own balance system that works without our help and in spite of our best attempts to control or destroy it. If there is more water surface there is more evaporation. If there is more evaporation, there are more clouds. If there are more clouds, there is more cooling shade and rain (percipitation). This is a simple example for those who have trouble with logic.

Posted by: JD at October 30, 2007 7:31 AM
Comment #237217
What happened to last comments, Eric’s one I just replied to in particular?

Philippe, I moved the WB site to a new server last night. I think Eric’s comment you replied to got lost during the database migration. The comment itself is likely in the MySQL database on the old server and was left by Eric right after I did the mysqldump and copied it over to the new server, therefore the comment did not get copied over.

Please note that I’m still ironing out the kinks with file permissions on the new server. You will probably experience some issues with leaving comment on any posts that are created today. I’m researching the issue and will try to get everything functioning later tonight. In the meantime, leaving comments on all posts with yesterday’s timestamp or earlier should be fine.

Posted by: Cameron Barrett at October 30, 2007 10:08 AM
Comment #237218

Thanks Cameron, now it make sense…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2007 10:48 AM
Comment #237219


#1. Temperature recording and calculation is not done only by your NASA, mind you.

#2. But we still don”t know for sure how many $ it cost oil industries to buy a scientific support, right?

#3. If nobody can, you neither - and so can’t claim precipitation may or not cold back the climate. You can’t have it both way, sorry.

#4. Normal? What that supposed to means? For who, humans only? All animals? All ecosystems? What matter here is not the value in itself but the speed of its change. Aka the adaptation rate will must take. Nobody will worry that much about a +20° predicted on the next 10,000 years range. But +2° at best to +6° at worst on the next 100 years is more trouble.

#5. I’ll bet that the 30’ will never came back in the future. What the point?

#6. They have proof. In the open. Deniers focus on poll instead. One may wonder why…

#7. Oh? Any link with scientific proof(s) to share with us?

#8. Artic icecap will melt. Glaciers will shrink. Sea level will increase. And some people will deny until death these changes are reals. See, some GW predictions made 10 years ago actually became true!

#9. Maybe because he knows from start that even he should live as the most ecologic extremist, he still would be that target to climate change deniers and he would have take him far more time to spread his words all around the world. I never check, but doesn’t Gore compensate his carbon emission already?

#10. WE (yes, you include not just “US”, mind you) ARE BIGGER PART OF EARTH ECOSYSTEM THAN EVER. Sorry for yelling but I have to, as you were too at the same time/point. That “theory” about a mythical self-regulated Earth impossible to break is unfounded. We knows since the Cold War (how ironic!) that all human nukes together could easily destroy “Gaia”. Stop kidding yourself, the Earth wont care about humankind survival or even, for what it matter, her.

Anyway, thanks for your warming -> more clouds -> more cooling -> back to zero state theory. Now please share with your scientific fellows for peer reviews, as I’m sure they never though about including possible precipitation evolution in their models…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 30, 2007 11:42 AM
Comment #237225

10) Power’s got nothing to do with it. we use so much water to irrigate our crops, that some major rivers barely reach the sea. We’ve dammed the might Colorado and the Nile. We’ve prevented the Mississippi from changing course.

Oh, and we’ve released billions upon billions upon billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere that hasn’t been there for tens of millions of years, yanking it from the ground with a speed unknown in nature.

Now nature doesn’t look at these things and say “Humans? Oh they’re not so powerful.” No, it just mindlessly operates. CO2 is CO2. Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t care where it comes from, it just reacts according to the physics.

What scientists have learned is that it doesn’t take humongous changes to get humongous results. A few degrees cooling changed the Sahara from a grassland to a desert. A few degrees more or less heat from the sun was the difference between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.

It’s not about power, it’s about consequence.

9) He’s rich, so he’s a hypocrite? The man buys wind power, refits his homes for energy efficiency, so on and so forth. He consumes more energy, but he pays for renewables and new technologies where he can.

Being rich doesn’t make a friend of the environment a hypocrite. What does seem to be disingenous is invoking the specter of increased carbon emissions by somebody as a fallacious ad hominem argument for not buying their argument to go green.

8)How about this? Mind you, this is with the less accurate models.

7)Yes, because everybody got together and banned most of the usage and manufacture of it. Nonetheless, CFCs were destructive to ozone.

6)Science is inherently about how one forms consensus. That’s the point of the scientific method. A consensus among scientists may not always be right, but it is the best guess that evidence, observation, and experiment have borne up. This consensus is dynamic, but it’s not arbitrary.

You can’t really prove a theory. A theory is a best guess approximation, shown to be reliable. However, ignoring scientific theories because of this uncertainty and tentativeness is foolhardy. Science is a game of refining theories, of refining knowledge, and its the theories that prove more reliable than not that are favored.

5)By a few hundredths of a degree. In the US. And those record temperatures have been surpassed since then.

4) No such animal. First, the Earth doesn’t have one temperature, it has many. However, we can say that since the end of the last ice age, the variations, though sometime profound locally, have been generally small globally.

3) The models have been reasonably accurate even though they can’t perfectly model the effect. Even so, the uncertainty about the effect is no reason to throw caution to the wind. Uncertainty doesn’t justify complacency, because there’s nothing that says that these things have to work out in your favor.

2)If you’re talking about the money that Hansen got from the Open Society Institute, the trouble is, there’s no real quid pro quo. He was given the money to help publicize the views he’s been publically speaking about for over twenty years.

1)Yes, and they corrected it. If infallibility was required for good science, we’d still be riding horses and reading by candlelight. The scientific method, if nothing else, is about correcting mistaken beliefs. Nearly every subject we’re going to start on, we will start on from a position of error.

In the case of these measurements, there will always be issues we don’t see ahead of time. The corrections, though, in this case, don’t make a whole lot of difference. In terms of the record temperatures, we go from a dead heat minsculely in the 1990’s temperature’s favor, to one infinitesmally in the 1930’s favor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #237226

#1. Who are your sources for gathering temperature.
#2. Stick to question. Even if the oil companies buy scientists it still does not make it science either. Just concensus.
#3. This means the models that are so relied on by GW are wrong! Not better not worse but inaccurate and basically useless.
#4. The earth is growing warmer. Who says that the “normal” state of the temperature is not warmer. Who decides what is the correct temperature for the earth?
#5. In the years around 1930, the global temperature was the highest recorded in the last 100 years. In the 1800’s it was even warmer with countries like Iceland and Greenland being less snow covered!
#6. Science is not debatable. Opinions are! Prove it or it is only opinion. My scientist are bigger than yours, big deal!
#7. Try this
#8. If nobody told you yet, Glaciers are actually growing in one pole. What is the natural level of the sea. If the sea level rose by 3 feet every 100 years, nobody would notice.
#9. Gore pays a company he is part owner in, to plant trees. If you were serious about GW, you wouldn’t defend him. In other words, he is rich so he can pay someone to make up for giant carbon footprint. He tells you to cut back to make up for his gluttony.
#10. What did the earth ever do without us to regulate the temperature. After the nukes, the earth would eventually return to it’s own natural cycle (we would be gone so you would get your wish).

Scientist/climatologist have been trying to include percipitation in their models for decades. They just don’t know how. They can’t even accurately predict the percipitation for tomorrow for a given area. They predict massive hurricanes like Katrina that never appear.

Posted by: JD at October 30, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #237227

My friends, for just a few minutes take off your political hats and let your brain breathe. No one on this site is against clean air and water, or against new energy that doesn’t rely on the burning of carbon based fuels. What some folks object to is the knee-jerk reaction to what is being promoted as man-made global warming. Just a few short decades ago many in the scientific community were voicing alarm over global cooling and all the dire consequences of not acting immediately. Please, I understand that we have better science today than even a few decades ago. But, those folks believed they were absoutely correct based upon on what they knew then. Well, times and science changed and as it turns out they were wrong. Could we possibly be wrong again today? Is it just possible we shouldn’t rush into solutions that may cause even more problems? What kind of global climate would we have today if the entire world had made it their common cause to increase global temperatures in fear of the coming ice age? I am not suggesting we do nothing, and I believe Al Gore has probably done some good in focusing our attention on the continued reliance on carbon based fuels. We must be very careful with any attempts to influence global climate and disrupt the world economy. Being politically correct isn’t enough, we must be factually correct. And, from my studies, I don’t believe we are at that point yet. For a great read on the environment by the father of modern forestry I recommend you read “A Sand County Almanac” by Aldo Leopold. It’s not a political book, but rather a look at our environment by a careing, knowledgeable professor at the U. of Wisconsin.

Posted by: Jim at October 30, 2007 1:19 PM
Comment #237228

#7 should be

Posted by: JD at October 30, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #237229

Funny - when I read your opening line, I read it not as “It bears repeating, (because the GW lies are repeated over and over)”, but as “It bears repeating, (because the GWB lies are repeated over and over)”

Which made a LOT more sense to me.

Posted by: Jon R at October 30, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #237234


Join me in advocating the carbon tax and tolerating expensive gas. Join me in pushing for nuclear power. Join me in reforestation. I am
advocating immediate action and taking what actions I can now.

The celebrities who like to paint the dire pictures are meanwhile flying all over in private jets, living in big houses and in general
contributing more than their share to the problem. The politicians who want to hold more conferences and sign more agreements refuse to take the first step in taxing carbon.

We agree there is a problem, but most people prefer simply to talk about it, hold energy intensive concerts to “fight” it or decry the fact that George Bush is president.

And let me mention again New Orleans. When I advocate the sensible approach of NOT fighting nature by rebuilding on wetlands, it is the
lefties who give me the hardest time. They evidently do not believe or understand their own arguments about the urgency of global warming.

So you will excuse me if I believe actions should conform to words and if I believe that all this BS that “environmentalist” put out is mostly hot air that probably warms the globe. Even in your own rebuttal, you try to play the “poor” card. We all must afford to pay carbon taxes. We all must use less CO2. Simple persuasion does not work, no matter how many times Al Gore flies to an event to hector us. If you are too poor to pay, you are just out of luck. Buy a bike and commute as I do or walk. If you have a low carbon lifestyle, you can avoid most of the tax.

Posted by: Jack at October 30, 2007 3:15 PM
Comment #237260

1) The source for the original temperature, I believe was Microwave Readings from satellites, which had to be calibrated using weather balloons. Discrepancies had to be figured for. But it didn’t make a lot of difference overall. While the correction was certainly necessary, it wasn’t a catastrophic restatement that would undermine the credibility of the event. Like my old professor said, a difference to be a difference has to make a difference. It might make certain models mildly more accurate, but apart from that, we could not notice some of the differenes.

2)Hansen was espousing his views long before any grant was provided for publicizing them. More to the point, like my link said before: his prediction of the most likely course for global warming was actually pretty good.

Haven’t you ever wondered why Bush hasn’t been able to fire him? His science is too good.

3)Uncertain doesn’t mean wrong. Ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? The reality of atmospheric physics is that they are very sensitive to very small changes. It’s why you can’t get much more accuracy on long term weather forecasts. The atmosphere is complex, multi-layered, and highly interconnected. There are patterns to weather and climate that give the system some predictability, but you’re never going to get a simple answer from a scientific prediction about climate.

4)There’s no such thing as a normal state. There’s just the state determined by physic, a dynamic, fluctuating state. We can establish, though, through statistical methods, what the normal averages are over an extended period. That’s climate.

5)2006’s temperatures exceeded the 1930’s. Moreover, remember that we’re talking about global warming, not local. Local temperatures may well have flucuated above current temperatures in the past. It’s the overall system, though, that matters in all this.

6) Science, by definitions, is very debateable. In fact, it’s a process built much of debate, with consensus coming of the community of scientists testing and retesting old and new theories alike. Global Warming is being borne out by the evidence. That’s why AGW is winning the debate: the sheer preponderance of the evidence. Predictions about where the heating is taking place and when are coming true. signs of melting in areas that have seen thousands of years of ice cover are also part of the convincing picture. The consensus is valuable because it’s growing naturally, of its own accord.

7) Your link seems to rule out any other causes.

8) An orbital gravity-mapping instrument not only showed mass loss in the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets, some satellite also showed a great expanse of ice which re-melted and froze. Additional satellite photography indicates record lows for polar ice, and have captured the rapid destruction of a number of ice shelfs.

As for sea rise, I’m afraid it would become noticed, sooner or later. The change in coastlines from just the small recent changes has been very noticeable. Three feet would be more than noticeable, it would be bloody obvious. Get a map of all the places three feet above sea level, and see how much the landscape would change.

9)Way to go. A conservative making an argument based on class envy. From what I’ve heard, Gore is putting his money where his mouth is. There’s no need to give this ad hominem bit of political rhetoric anymore credibility than it deserves.

10)Nobody said we regulated it. We’re affecting it. There’s no need to be in charge of the works to throw a monkey wrench into them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2007 10:20 PM
Comment #237275

Arguments and more arguments, but very few SOLUTIONS that make sense.

The answer is quite simple… since humankind is responsible for global warming then humans must be punished.

The only acceptable punishment for humankind is to regulate population numbers and behaviors. Human earth population must be reduced and maintained. All humans must be given the same opportunity for prosperity. All humans must be taught to use natural resources in a conscientious manner. Workers will be required to live close to their work. Personal transportation options will be reduced. Travel and consumerism will be restricted and regulated.

We will adjust.
You have been warned.

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2007 12:57 AM
Comment #237313


Join me in advocating the carbon tax and tolerating expensive gas. Join me in pushing for nuclear power. Join me in reforestation. I am
advocating immediate action and taking what actions I can now.

I am already tolerating expensive gas. I am all for the carbon tax providing that those taxes go directly into the funding of researching, developing and instituting new and current alternative energy systems. If these funds are to go into securing oil or the further use of coal then I find the whole process a bit defeating. Most likely what will happen with carbon taxes is that those who have more will not be directly affected because they can afford to not change. Once again the rest of us will pay more and have less in restricted lifestyles. While the problems remain because there will be no serious advancements made until there is no longer any choice. Yes I am playing the poor card. Why should the poor suffer more than the wealthy when the wealthy are larger contributors to the problem? I am not totally opposed to nuclear energy. The problem is that we would once again be insuring additional long term problems while at the same time removing the sense of urgency to find immediate long term safe solutions. That is, putting off today what we can do tomorrow.

We can and should demand that energy use in all areas of our lives be as efficient as humanely possible. This of course would require regulation. Of course we all know that regulation where the profits of corporate america is concerned is a dirty word. We have one of the most inefficient mast transit systems in the world. This should not be in a country as rich and technologically advanced as ours. The priorities of this country are centered around the profits of the wealthy not what is best for us as a nation. So long as the lobbyist industry is allowed to forestall advancement and dictate direction we will not make acceptable timely necessary advancements. What I see is just more posturing and talk with no real efforts or desire by those who can to seriously attack these issues of real concern. More procrastination because those who decide the direction of the markets have not as yet figured out exactly how to insure the profits of efficiency go into the proper pockets.

It is not the immediate future I am concerned about. I am relatively old and realize that these issues will not directly affect me to any great degree in my lifetime. But I am very concerned about what sort of life my children and grand children will have.

Posted by: RickIL at October 31, 2007 11:36 AM
Comment #237323
In short, the issue of global warming has been distorted into a propaganda campaign to promote the goals of global liberalism. And as such it has ceased to be an issue of science.

Exactly! It is not a scientific issue, it’s a religious issue; b/c this is a religion to the “hummans are causing” global warming crowd. Man, how arrogant and pathetic do you have to be in order to think that man can have such an effect on earth to actually destroy it?!! Warming, cooling, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. have been going on for 4.5 billion years and, yet, the past 200 years prove that we are causing global warming?! Whatever fruitcakes! I’ll stick with wine (for the eucharist) than the kool-aid for the “humans are causing” global warming crowd.

Posted by: rahdigly at October 31, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #237327

Seems like everyone needs some sort of religion. Some people worship capitalism, some worship war.

Posted by: jlw at October 31, 2007 3:27 PM
Comment #237329


YOu are missing the point and the solution. The carbon tax is designed to raise the price of carbon based fuels. You do not tolerate higher carbon fuel prices, you embrace them. The proceeds of the tax do not need to be invested in alternatives. The fact that you tax carbon and do not tax alternatives gives them a defacto subsidy.

If you want, you can apply carbon taxes to earned income credit to help the poor, but you cannot allow anybody to dodge the tax. Those who use less, pay less because they are doing less harm to the environment. Rich or poor, the atmosphere cannot tell and neither should we.

NOTHING affects energy usage faster than a price. If you are serious about the environment, you support carbon taxes. If you are interesting in using the environment as a tool to achieve other goals, you obfiscate. It is simple as that.

Posted by: Jack at October 31, 2007 4:12 PM
Comment #237342

Jack -
The one MAJOR flaw with the “carbon tax” is that it is not a global solution. We cannot impose it upon everybody. That means that the good ‘ol USofA will be taxed for the “sins” of the world. Put us on a cross already and be done with it. If reducing carbon is THE SOLUTION to the global problem of warming THEN make it a GLOBAL TAX. Reducing the carbon output of ONLY the U.S. (which is already going down on a per capita basis) when the per capita rate of carbon emission in population-increasing third world nations is rising is a joke and an incredible waste of time. (Who cares if we lead the world in carbon emission reduction, if it doesn’t solve the problem.)

Posted by: Don at October 31, 2007 8:37 PM
Comment #237352

David… I have been out for a while, and I am responding to a post of yours from three days ago, but in your second response above you imply that science allows us to “be able to budget our economy”…

hhmmm… sounds like fuzzy math to me… ;-)

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at November 1, 2007 1:45 AM
Comment #237358


The beauty of the carbon tax is that it does not require global cooperation. If the U.S. or any other country, imposes the tax, ALL the revenue stays in that country. It only creates a relative price difference among fuels IN the country.

Of course, other countries will also need to take action. China is now the world’s biggest producer of CO2 and their share is growing. We cannot solve this problem if others do not do their parts, but we CAN begin to do ours w/o the others.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2007 6:44 AM
Comment #237361

Jack: Doesn’t Western Europe have a defacto carbon tas already when you consider the price of gas at their pumps?

Where is the evidence that China is now the largest producer of CO2? Granted, their economy has grown tremendously in the last five years, but in 2002, they were second to the U.S. with their output being a little more than have of ours.

Unless we have an all out frontal assult on CO2 emissions and energy dependence in unison with a carbon tax, the carbon tax revenue will be wasted, the oil companies profits will continue to rise, and we will continue to use aggression to secure oil resources. Even if you don’t agree that the war in Iraq is for oil, the price of the war is a carbon tax that we are passing on to our children.

Posted by: jlw at November 1, 2007 8:37 AM
Comment #237364

Jack -
Sorry, but your answer doesn’t cut it for me.

“we CAN begin to do ours w/o the others.”

You are not talking about SOLVING the problem, only “doing our part”. Our part won’t solve anything. It is the USA taking on the guilt of the world and feeling an obligation to “do something”. IF THIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM AND IF HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE, THEN THE SOLUTION MUST BE A GLOBAL SOLUTION THAT ENLISTS ALL HUMANS. Without the global solution there is no “beauty” to the carbon tax idea.

This is exactly what I referenced early in the discussion. If humans are responsible for global warming then the solution must be global. The humans in the USA (no matter how much they do) cannot stop global warming alone.

Posted by: Don at November 1, 2007 9:26 AM
Comment #237377

The fact that you tax carbon and do not tax alternatives gives them a defacto subsidy.

Tell me Jack, at what price per barrel of oil will we as a nation demand alternatives. I am not missing the point. I realize the benefits. What bothers me is that I do not see us as a nation as recognizing the urgency of this problem. We have been discussing, researching and offering alternatives for several decades now. But in the long term it seems there are always obstacles to viable alternatives and their entry into the market on a large scale. Some of those obstacles are political and many are the result of special interest money. Most are the result of underfunding of research.

What I am implying is that our priorities are not in order. Instead of investing in war and the petroleum industry we should be investing those dollars in finding, funding, and instituting real long term sustainable solutions. I would much rather be spending my tax dollars on investing in independence as opposed to waging war to secure control of carbon based products. In the long run the results of independence will be good for our environment and health of the world as a whole resulting in a better life for all.

It is apparent that we have the same goals in mind. Where we disagree is in the recognition of the urgency of the problem. You think carbon taxes will provide an initiative. I do not disagree. But I do find something inherently wrong with the idea of further taxing consumers to stimulate the markets. I think we are being irresponsible as a nation in not demanding immediate change regardless of the price of fuel. I feel that waiting for the markets to dictate change will take much much to long. We know the problem exists and is accelerating. The responsible action would be to vigorously attack it now, rather than waiting until it is an absolute necessity. It is imo quite simply a necessary logical common sense approach. We as a nation should be investing as much as humanly possible in establishing energy efficiency and independence. But we all know that this process will mean a decline in profits for certain industries. Therein lies the true obstacle to energy independence.

Posted by: RickIL at November 1, 2007 11:38 AM
Comment #237384


“The humans in the USA (no matter how much they do) cannot stop global warming alone.”

Yes, but standing around sucking our collective thumbs, and whining about the rest of the world won’t solve the problem either.

If we are to solve this problem, perceived or not, why can’t America lead by example?

Posted by: Rocky at November 1, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #237392

“If we are to solve this problem, perceived or not, why can’t America lead by example?”

Because whenever we lead, half of Americans and 3/4 of the world do nothing but bitch about it if it doesn’t put the world first and the US last.

Twenty+ years ago, most of us did not care about recycling, using less energy and other stuff of the “green” sort. Today, we are more aware of things and have taken steps to help preserve our resources, clean our air etc…
Slowly, but surely, things are getting better.

You cannot just slam a bunch of “green” info which is suspect and “green” taxes onto the people and expect them to accept it. It just doesn’t work that way.

We would have better luck with trying to educate on FACTS and slowly introduce solutions. Its like weening a baby.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #237422

What will solve the problem? How much carbon reduction is required to stop global warming?

Choose an answer: a)I think 2 pounds/year/person should do it? b)I think 20 pounds/year/person? c)I don’t know, but I think we should reduce it? d)I know exactly how much, but its a secret?

For the last six months I’ve been trying to get somebody to tell me how much is needed so that we can develop an effective strategy. All I ever get is “We need to do everything we can.” However, that is not a strategy. That is a guilt-trip and a waste of our time, energy and money (ineffective and unproductive). I am not interested in “doing something” to help, I want to know what will not only “help” but will definitely “solve” the problem. Only when you define the problem properly can you develop an effective solution.

Posted by: Don at November 1, 2007 7:52 PM
Comment #237423


While I do agree that change takes time, often decades, that doesn’t mean that Americans should ignore facts that are right in front of them.

That Americans should do what is right regardless of what the rest of the world does is exactly my point. America is supposed to be the shining star. America is supposed to be what the rest of the world aspires to be.
I keep hearing people say that America is the greatest nation on earth, yet I also some of those same people bitch and whine that we don’t have to do anything because the rest of the world isn’t going to.
That is such a line of crap.

America is the best because we try to do the right thing.
Hey, sometimes we’re wrong, but at least we’ve tried. It is not trying that will lead to others not doing anything.

Posted by: Rocky at November 1, 2007 7:57 PM
Comment #237436


If humans are responsible for global warming then the solution must be global. The humans in the USA (no matter how much they do) cannot stop global warming alone.

By global solution, do you mean everybody except those red states?

Because one global solution was agreed long ago already. Not the best one, but not the worst either. But, because only a few states refused to take responsability for their huge green house gaz emission, those who ratified it represents only 61% of world emission.

Who refuse to take part of a global solution here? The rest of the world or only these few states?

Stop kidding yourself. The rest of the world is looking for a global solution since decades already. This is NOT the other way. US could have leaded the move (and still could, in fact), but choose to not. Ask Bush & Co why, not the rest of the world.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 2, 2007 8:59 AM
Comment #237454

Nicely said Rocky, and I totally agree with you.
I just believe the lefts tactic of “do it now, or else” is the wrong way to go about it. The enviro religious types do nothing but turn people away from the real message and the elitests such as gore want others to do what they themselves won’t do. Does it really make sense for those people to drive and fly all over the world and tell people they need to do something about about the emissions they cause?
As with taxes, this elitist thinking of everybody else should change the quality of their way of life so that I don’t have to change the quality of my life, doesn’t fly with everybody.

And look at the facts that are right in front of them right now. There is no concrete proof that man is the cause of this warming, how bad it would be or that anything we do will stop it.

Slow changes and more studies from eviromental scientists will bring about what we need to do alot faster than “reports” from thousands of Art Bells who form a world group which ignores any and all opinions and studies which go against their opinions.

“I keep hearing people say that America is the greatest nation on earth, yet I also some of those same people bitch and whine that we don’t have to do anything because the rest of the world isn’t going to”

Shoot, I don’t give a damn about the rest of the world and I don’t like that reasoning either.
If its good for the US, it shouldn’t matter what the rest of the world is doing.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #237500

Several points (good ones really) -
1) Nobody can tell me how much carbon-reduction is required to stop global warming.
2) They’re all sure we (the U.S.) should be doing “something”.
3)They’re not concerned with whether the rest of the world cooperates.
4) If you question the rules of this kooky game or question the importance of the data used or resist obeying, then you are labelled a “bad person.”

That’s why I don’t trust these kooks!

I have only ONE QUESTION for the kooks:
“If the entire U.S. totally eliminated carbon emissions by the year 2017 would that stop (or even slow) global warming?” Please give me a YES or NO answer, then explain why it would work (or not).

Posted by: Don at November 2, 2007 8:33 PM
Comment #237518

Are we still on global warming? Good Lord.

Posted by: andy at November 3, 2007 2:38 AM
Comment #237528

Andy, alas, yes.

Anyway, it wont last long anymore.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 3, 2007 6:50 AM
Comment #237564

1) There are estimates on what will happen with Global Warming, given scenarios for atmospheric concentrations of C02. See the IPCC site:

2) The US should be doing “something” because the US emits roughly 1/4 of the world greenhouse gas emissions.

3) International cooperation comes through the Kyoto Accords.

4) There is nothing wrong with questioning data. But the overwhelming body of evidence indicates Global Warming is a very, very big problem. Pretending otherwise can be attributed to a number of reasons.

“If the entire U.S. totally eliminated carbon emissions by the year 2017 would that stop (or even slow) global warming?”

No. Of course not. The damage is done. The C02 already in the atmosphere will persist for up to a century, and this locks in warming of at least 2 degrees centigrade. The only question is, how much worse are we going to make it?

Posted by: phx8 at November 3, 2007 7:10 PM
Comment #237705

phx8 -
[In case you check back]

Thanks for the input. I checked out:

“1) There are estimates on what will happen with Global Warming, given scenarios for atmospheric concentrations of C02. See the IPCC site:”

After two hours of reading, looking at charts and graphs… still haven’t found the answer you say is there. Could you be more specific?

While I generally agree with:

“2) The US should be doing “something” because the US emits roughly 1/4 of the world greenhouse gas emissions.”

However, we could do something to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by closing our borders to illegals who now number in the millions and are growing every day. Reducing the population = reducing emissions.
Also, the fact is that the rest of the world’s portion of emissions is growing every year, while the U.S. portion is shrinking. Reducing our emissions when the rest of the world does nothing is a fool’s game.

I disagree with:

“3) International cooperation comes through the Kyoto Accords.”

The Accords would do incredibly little to change real emissions. (It looks good on paper, tho.)

The evidence for man as the causal agent for global warming is sketchy, at best. Those who proclaim that we must “do something” show by their actions that they themselves don’t believe what they say is true (flying on private jets, as an example). And the “strategies” suggested do not suggest this is a huge problem primarily because the strategies do not deal with the underlying problem (the world population is growing at a rate unbelievable as of two centuries ago) [Listen carefully…] Without a plan to stabilize or reduce world population there is no way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the long run. >

Posted by: Don at November 6, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #238010

in response to your question, why don’t you get a copy of a book that was published in 1993 called ECO-SCAM. It is full of names, dates, places on the subject you want some information about and is a real eye-opener. And it’s 14 years old already so this is not exactly a new issue. You might also try a book by Lowell Ponte, titled “The “Cooling” published in 1976. The author and others like Jeremy Rifkin, then promoting the impending Ice-age are now selling global warming as a man-made problem.
It is not. It has happened many times in the past, read “Unstoppable global warming every 1500 years” by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.
Hope this will help.

Posted by: frederik engel at November 10, 2007 11:20 AM
Comment #238082

The science of climatology has made tremendous strides in the past ten years.

If we were discussing computer technology, you would not cite material from the 1970s or even 1993. Why do you cite dubious material from 1993 or earlier when it comes to Global Warming? The year is 2007. Please join us. And while you are at it, please bring along some current material.

Posted by: phx8 at November 11, 2007 5:26 PM
Comment #238511

Glad to oblige. My earlier references were merely to show that the topic, now called global warming has been bandied around for more than 40 years, which most people aren’t even aware of, except those who used to call the same unexplained climate changes—“the cooling” or the “coming ice age”. Real climate science has been developing for a lot longer than 10 years but never enjoyed broad public interest until somebody latched on to the CO2 issue as the falsely identified driver of atmospheric change. The truth is much more complex and also non-threatening, which really takes the political steam out of the subject and would require all its current advocates to find something elae to scare people with. So as long as it lasts many currently interested parties prefer to clamp onto publications like “An inconvenient truth” rather than studying
” Unstoppable global warming, every 1500 years” by Singer & Avery, or “the Chilling stars” by Svensmark and Calder. Slogans do not make science and while the world is warming a bit it has nothing to do with humanity’s puny activities. But it makes for a very scary story with great political potential supporting lots of expensive, feel-good actions that only take away good money from real long term energy efficiencies. Carbo hydrates are going to be with us for a long time yet and there is plenty of it. Not to worry.

Posted by: frederik engel at November 16, 2007 7:51 AM
Comment #238519

Your comment contains little more than half-truths and outright inaccuracies. You are correct about concern in the scientific community over Global Warming having existed for several decades. You are incorrect in suggesting Global Cooling was also a concern. In one of the books you cite, a preface clearly states there is insufficient data for Cooling. If you have a long memory, concern over Cooling was fueled by the specter of Nuclear Winter, which was driven by the hypothesis that airborne particulates would freeze the world. That thesis is carried over to one of the books you cite, with human pollution pumping particulates into the air, and thus causing Global Cooling.

The idea has something behind it. The biggest problem is that man-made pollutants such as Sulfur Dioxide do cause cooling, but they break down within a year or two, and do not reach & persist in the upper atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide, however, persists for decades. It is not the most efficient greenhouse gas, but enormous amounts are being added by humanity every year. This is enough to cause the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase measureably each year. That has been the main concern of the scientific community.

No one denies historical changes have naturally occur with Global Climate. Today, even the so-called Global Cooling sceptics concede warming is occurring, but the sceptics cannot explain why.

Most people in the scientific community can explain why, and they have a wealth of hard data to back their explanation.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #238531


You are very generous in qualifying other people’s statements as half-truths and outright inaccuracies, but it doesn’t make for a very grown-up and focused discussion on the merits of a topic.

I must assume you have read everyone of the books I mentioned plus a number of other essays and reports on the subject, in which case I am at a loss to understand your patronizing attitude to many climate scientists who have been telling us for years already that the earth is warming. There is no issue with that. The only serious question is whether humanity’s activities caused it or not. While it might contribute to it, the magnitude of CO2,H2O, methane, sulfur and other derivatives etc. as a factor in global warming appears to be puny compared with variable solar emissions, cosmic ray driven cloud formations not to mention relative orbital positions within the solar system together with the whole of that in its galactic travels. You may not believe this but it is really closer to the truth that the popular fable of global warming. Consequently it does not impress those who spend their lives studying the problem. The climate scientists with whom I am familiar have published some complex but persuasive reasons why we are warming up and why this is an almost predictable event. It behooves us to realize that the whole issue is a lot more complex than the media and a lot of biased global warming promotors want to admit, because it would destroy their latest political plaything. As long as these people and whoever believes their cant can sell scare stories to a gullible public they will do so but it neither illuminates the issue nor will it do much for their reputations as prognosticators in the future.

Posted by: frederik engel at November 16, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #238537

You write: “The only serious question is whether humanity’s activities caused it or not. While it might contribute to it, the magnitude of CO2,H2O, methane, sulfur and other derivatives etc. as a factor in global warming appears to be puny compared with variable solar emissions, cosmic ray driven cloud formations not to mention relative orbital positions within the solar system…”

Solar irradiation contributed to past natural variations in Global Climate. Recent studies have ruled it out as a significant cause of the current warming.

Malenkovitch cycles have also caused natural variations in the past, and been ruled out.

The IPCC is about to come out with its 4th Report, the Synthesis Report. This Report represents the state of the art understanding of the situation. It is conservative, and understates the problem, because the Report represents a consensus which must be approved by governments. Keep in mind the IPCC Report only includes data as of mid-2006.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #238568


First of all, I would like to address you with a name rather than a number, which you obviously are not.

But to the point of the effects of solar radiation on our earthly climate, that is exactly one of the areas that was, until relatively recently, tremendously underrated in the past but it turns out to be quite powerful. I would have responded the way you did 12 months ago.

Since you are familiar with the Milankovitch Effect ( I think it is with an i not an a) you know that the Effect reflects the variations in sunlight falling particularly on the Poles over thousands of years due to orbital variations of the earth in its trips around the sun. And indeed, these astronomical changes are far too slow to explain the rapid switches in northern and southern temperatures in comparison with borehole records or in the air temperatures seen during the last century.
That being so, the current thinking is that the only “forcing agent” that directly predicts that Antarctic climate anomaly is varying cloudiness.
See page 88 in Svensmark’s book. What’s more the varying cloudiness effect has been credibly tied to cosmic ray activity, involving galaxial supernova explosions, the upshot of which has a powerful effect on the thinking about this whole solar energy balance. as I understand it.
Finally, you and I may have different views about the credibility of the new IPCC report to be published tomorrow. I see it as a purely political statement which has been analyzed and found to contain some very questionable material. But since its purpose is mostly to serve as a blueprint for international action to try to “offset” the growing CO2 etc. impact, critical questions are no longer entertained. It has become a given and is now sacrosanct and beyond the need for factual analysis. Anyone attempting to doubt the report’s veracity or intent is ridiculed and subject to character assassination, as you well know.
From where I sit, it is a colossal political boondoggle that will waste untold billions and achieve little if any measurable remedial results.
That does not mean we cannot continue our discussion, I am never too old to learn. Stay well.

Posted by: frederik engel at November 16, 2007 9:05 PM
Comment #238578

My name is Don, but I much prefer to use Phx8 for several reasons. First, there are more than one Dons who have posted comments, so it causes confusion. Second, there are work-related reasons. I am in a sales job related to technology, and I talk with a lot of people. A little anonimity is a good idea in my case. Finally, we all occasionally encounter, umm, unpleasant people on sites. If anyone decided to make things nasty for mem & wanted to find out my name, address, job, income, and so on, I’m sure they could do it. But I’d rather not make it too easy.

Cloud formation affected by cosmic ray activity, due to supernovas? Maybe, but that seems like a stretch.

Solar irradiation is not well understood, but most studies suggest it plays a small role in the current warming trend.

Don’t put much stock in the IPCC? Here is a list of scientific institutions which concur AGW is happening:

1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.5 U.S. National Research Council, 2001
1.6 American Meteorological Society
1.7 American Geophysical Union
1.8 American Institute of Physics
1.9 American Astronomical Society
1.10 Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
1.11 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.12 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.13 Geological Society of America
1.14 American Chemical Society
1.15 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia

“… No scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.”

By the way, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on solar variation:

Even if solar variations could be tied to the current warming trend, which at this point, they cannot, even then, it would be foolish to add greenhouse gases to a climate which is already warming.

This is a long-term problem. Waiting for after-the-fact, 100% certainty runs an unacceptable degree of risk. It is highly likely greenhouse gases are responsible for the warming. The amounts produced by humanity are measureable. The amounts in the atmosphere are measureable. The data consistently supports the hypothesis.

At some point, Frederik, we have to make a decision, and act upon it. Ten years ago, there may not have been enough information to act. Today, we have enough to make an informed decision.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #238670

Don, I will call you this once and appreciate the reasons given for your preference for the sobriquet.
Like you I have been resisting some of the newer information that has become available on our subject. At the same time however, having lived a long time I have garnered a lot of experience with people. And one of the things you may possibly admit to, is the fact that calamitous, threatening, sudden ideas and events are much more likely to find exposure in and by the media than basically non-exciting, but possibly very illuminating stories or events.
This is particularly so, when certain subjects become popular and politically attractive subjects by enfranchising thousands of new and possibly gullable people to make waves. A politician doesn’t get 2 minutes of air time if all he wants to say to the public is that we really have a great country notwithstanding a few problems which we can handle. It’s the people with the doomsday scenarios approach who get all the attention they crave. Because the problem they present seems so urgent there is scant time for a lot more serious study, review and evaluation.
Of course you know this as well as I do but any serious person who wants to make sure he is not getting trapped in another tulip Ponzi scheme or something similar, is likely to be a whole lot more sceptical than those who like to walk in parades and wave flags in favor of turning economies upside down, if only they realized the consequences of their beliefs.
I apologize for the longwinded review of this basic human pattern of conduct in the face of potential serious problems.
That is why, like you, I have spent a lot of my time reading and studying what the real climate scientists of all persuasions have said and are still saying about the potential causes of this global warming phenomenon. They may not yet have all the answers but CO2 it os not.
The very interesting and to me exciting thing here is that only in the last few years a lot of pretty fundamental new insight and information has been published after many years and sometimes decades of deep study and data gathering by many international specialists. Reading and talking about that with some others in the USA as well as Europe I am now convinced that the simple idea that the production of CO2 by humanity as the real “forcing agent” of our current global warming trend is just not tenable. The fact that it has been presented as such a clear-cut “cause and effect” issue should make everybody suspicious.
The interactions of our solar system and our galaxy are very complex and at the center of major investigations and research by international specialists.
The foundations for their findings are pretty solid, a lot more I would say than the assumption that because we are producing a lot of CO2, ipso facto it must be the forcing agent. It just isn’t so even though it undoubtedly contributes to the trend a bit.
Two books I highly recommend, to wit: “Unstoppable warming every 1500 years” by Singer and Avery and “The chilling stars” by Svensmark and Calder are very much worth anybody’s time and effort if one really wants to dig a bit deeper into this subject than just listening to the CO2 scheme promotors. You will learn for instance the details behind the solid evidence that cloud cover and the causes of its variations have major impacts on our global warming situation and for a very long time already. Solar radiation’s variability is a second major impacting factor.
It is unfortunate that so many political and even some scientific reputations are now tied up in this questionable CO2 scheme. As a consequence, enormous effort is being made to come to costly decisions soon, only for the reason that then it can be said “we did what we could and if it doesn’t work it would have been worse without it”. Which of course could not be proven but it might bankrupt the western world since many other countries, in my opinion, are not about to dive off this cliff even though they talk a good line. This is all “chicken little” thinking but not scientificaly sound and politically responsible action. It is propaganda, notwithstanding the fact that you mention the 15 institutions who may have endorsed all or part of this scheme.
I agree it is a long term event but well beyond our ability to do much about. To determine intelligently what we could and should do requires first of all that we collect a lot more information and study the issue much more thoroughly while taking the whole operation out of its current political embrace.
I would be happy to send you copies of the 2 books, as a Christmas present, provided you could give me a neutral address I could have Barnes & Noble send them to. And secondly, because you are seriously interested in the topic I would like to pick up our discussion again after you have read them. Might be worthwhile to start the New Year with. Sorry this has become a long story. Be well,

Posted by: frederik engel at November 18, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #238671

Thank you for the generous offer of those books. With all due respect, I will pass for the time being. Perhaps someday you will be proven right, and those books will be validated.

But I am profoundly pessimistic about the situation. You note some of the reaons: it would require a large degree of internaitonal cooperation, which is unlikely; it would mean investing in potentially costly changes- and while I think the technological innovations and new investments would greatly offset the upfront costs, people are naturally resistant to change.

In addition, understanding Global Warming requires some scientific background. It’s not exactly a strong point for Americans, never mind much of the rest of the world.

The natural human tendency will be to wait until changes become too big. But most changes that occur from Global Warming will be too slow & gradual to register until it is much too late.

11/12 of the warmest years on record (since 1850) have been the last twelve years. But the biggest temperature changes are occuring in the arctic. This is where the huge temperature changes are happening. Some people know this- but the arctic is far away, sparsely populated, and cold anyway. Who cares?

The problem is that the ice cap is melting much, much faster than predicted. Ice reflects, and water absorbs. The change of albedo creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. This is already known, but no one knows just how far and how fast the feedback loop will push things.

The northern latitudes contain vast amounts of permafrost. When it melts, permafrost emits large amounts of methane. While methane only lasts a few years in the atmosphere, it is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas. The feedback loop in the arctic will roll faster and faster, and no amount of international cooperation or green technologies can stop this.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Posted by: phx8 at November 19, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #238689

Thanks D,
much of what you say is right on the money and about the rest we only have some differences of degree. The place will get warmer, how warm exactly no one knows or is willing to predict. Both sides agree on that except for the extremes, one says it will be awful, the other that it will be manageable. Let’s hope more light will be shed on this question before we bankrupt ourselves or we both will be too old to know which way it’s going to go.
I do hope we’ll have another opportunity to exchange views in the future on something. I enjoyed this one. Meanwhile, stay well and the book offer will stay open.

Posted by: frederik engel at November 19, 2007 2:49 PM
Post a comment