It Is the Best of Times and the Worst of Times for Science
Diogenes said it couldn’t be done, but the New York Times has actually found an honest man. He is John Tierney, who writes a fine column called “TierneyLab,” which actually covers both sides of open scientific questions — an unprecedented innovation in the world of the Times.
And Tierney, it turns out, has discovered Australian Professor Ian Plimer, whose book Heaven And Earth takes no prisoners on global warming. Plimer’s book should be on your gift list for everyone who has been taken in by the global scam.
Says Professor Plimer:
The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology.
I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus, another brave and honest man, endorsed Plimer’s book:
This is a very powerful, clear, understandable and extremely useful book. … [Plimer] convincingly criticizes the UN, the IPCC, U.K. and U.S. politicians, as well as Hollywood show business celebrities. He strictly distinguishes science from environmental activism, politics, and opportunism.
This has now become an urgent matter because the political Left in Europe and America is desperate to lock in tax and trade as quickly as possible, before everybody understands they’ve been suckered.
Writes Richard Booker in the U.K. Telegraph:
The moves now being made … to lock us into December’s Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. … Britain and the U.S. are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 percent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry.
So if you’re wondering why Prince Charles, the famous climate expert, is now warning that we only have 96 months to live, and why Al Gore has openly called for a world government to control the nasty free marketeers, well, now you know. This scam is about to be exposed, and all the politicians are rushing to cash in before the voters find out. Obama’s EPA is no exception.
Scientific skeptics have been there all along. Global warming was always a blatant concoction by normal scientific standards. Scientists I’ve talked to over the years are finally muttering it, in private. Some are looking ashamed. But very few are expressing real outrage at the fraudsters. Too many of them were either suckered or corrupted by money, power, and simple cowardice.
Most scientists are liberals, and like so many on the Left they think that a little lying to the public can’t be all bad. They are utterly wrong. When science becomes an official lie it starts to decay; you don’t know whom to believe any more. And if you can’t believe published data, real science becomes impossible. I date the decay of public science to the AIDS fiasco twenty years ago, when the public health establishment failed to warn gay men that yes, AIDS is a gay disease and is communicated most often by anal intercourse.
The establishment lied and lied and lied, and more and more young men died, and the disease spread and spread. Now it’s in Africa, where anal intercourse is commonly used by female prostitutes as cheap birth control. That is why African AIDS has a somewhat different epidemiology. But it all goes back to a regime of lies by scientists and public health doctors. The lesson is: when science lies, people die.
British medical science lost credibility after the mad-cow scare, another blown-up fraud, like global warming, based on math models that never made any empirical sense. I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming. They are still trying to push it half-heartedly, but they really know the jig is up.
That’s why I believe the New York Times felt compelled to hire John Tierney. Tierney is giving them cover by writing about global warming as an hypothesis, not a Marx-given truth. If the global warming fraud is finally breaking down, the Times wants to say it knew it all along. If, by some miracle, the politicians manage to keep squeezing more billions of dollars out “to stop the rise of the oceans,” as Obama yelled out in his victory speech, the Times will take credit for saving the planet. They want to have it both ways.
The Lancet is a joke, as documented here on there countless faux-science articles. The Iraq War “casualty” study debacle and the asinine study claiming to link MMR vaccines and autism are just two examples of their “work”.
http://yellowlimes.blogspot.com/2008/01/soros-funded-iraq-civilian-war-casualty.html
http://yellowlimes.blogspot.com/2008/09/study-finds-lack-of-evidence-linking.html
http://yellowlimes.blogspot.com/2008/01/when-political-motivation-trumps.html
Kyle
Well written, well put and on the mark as to what goes on.
Can you, or someone, put it succinctly, concisely into the MSM with big bucks from an contra-Soros?
If not, we’re as doomed as Gallileo.
Well said.
I am a scientist and I echo your disgust with this AGW nonsense.
Good article. Another illustration of the truth that you should not get your climatology from a divinity school drop out, i.e. Al Gore Jr.
But understanding real science and learning the math and science required to even begin to properly analyze scientific issues (so as to tell good science from schlock) requires effort. I would guess that no more than 10% of the population, no more than 3% of the politicians and less than 1% of the media reporters have the intellect and training to even begin such an analysis. One of the things a year of statistics and years of analyzing lab results has taught me is that if you think you understand the results, you’re probably wrong.
Their (Gore and the like) aim is not necessarily to clean up the planet so we and our children and so on can live the healthiest lives possible, but to further the idea that humans (except them of course) really contribute nothing to the earth and we are in fact a tragic mistake of creation. The earth, the universe and beyond would be better without us.
Because so many people genuinely care about clean water, clean air etc. it is a button they can push to make money, act superior, and further their agenda to feed the idea that we really are part of the ‘unwashed’ masses lucky to be in the world they grace their presence with.
They will never let us forget that and they will never be happy if we spend one moment thinking we are a part of something glorious.
The tragi-comedy of AGW is about to turn from ironical disbelief at “science” to political disaster as Congress prepares to push through their cap-and-tax energy scam.
If it passes, watch the exodus of business from the U.S.A. and watch America become the poor banana-republic that the present WH seems dead-set on achieving, ruled by oligarchic kleptocrats who are better than the dumb masses that put them in power.
When bad research drives public policy, as we see here in this column by Ambassador Wilkens, it raises one question: why in blazes should Canada export anything to the United States? For Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the United States.
U.S. protectionism in green garb
David Wilkins, National Post
The United States Senate is now considering a sweeping climate-change bill that squeaked out of the House of Representatives by a razor thin, seven-vote margin. The mammoth 1,400-page bill passed in the House despite the fact that few members actually read it. A majority of Americans rightly fear what could be its devastating consequences.
A careful reading of the Waxman-Markey bill makes it clear that its potential damage reaches far beyond the U. S. border. If enacted in its current form, it would irrevocably harm Canada and the trade that has been the hallmark of our bilateral relationship.
A last-minute amendment inserted into the bill would tax goods that the United States imports from countries that refuse to adopt carbon-reducing measures. Congressional supporters say it was inserted to level the playing field for U. S. companies who would likely pay dearly for compliance costs under the bill’s cap-and-trade provisions. But Canada’s environment minister, Jim Prentice, has it right when he denounced the practice as “green protectionism.”
Ottawa is working with the United States on establishing similar greenhouse-gas reduction targets so that Canada would be exempt from the bill’s so-called “border adjustments.” But even if some solution is found, this amendment undercuts the spirit and strength of our trade relationship. Moreover, it forces nations such as Canada to pick up the tab for America’s great clean-up.
We’ve been down this protectionist road before. During the 1930s, the Smoot-Hawley Act raised tariffs on hundreds of thousands of imported goods to record levels. Other countries soon retaliated, slashing America’s exports and imports by more than half, worsening — and prolonging — the Great Depression.
The good news is that U. S. President Barack Obama seems to understand the provision could hurt global trade at a time when we can least afford it.
But the bad news is that some Midwestern Senators, such as Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), are pushing hard to toughen the House tariff language. And the U. S. Congress remains committed to promulgating protectionist measures.
From the “Buy American” provisions in the massive US$787-billion “stimulus” bill, to an interpretation of a 2007 energy bill that potentially targets the oil sands, Congress is aggressively pursuing a course that unnecessarily jeopardizes our strongest and most important trade relationships in favour of protectionist policies that history proves will only weaken our domestic economy.
As Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott with the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted in a Financial Times op-ed in May, there are “unintended consequences” attached to “Buy American” provisions embedded in a cap-and-trade system. In a bid to garner the support of the United Auto Workers’ union, the climate change legislation was altered to, in effect, ensure that future vehicles and key components will be built in the United States. While this appears superficially appealing as a means to protect domestic jobs, it also discounts U. S.-owned plants overseas and the industry’s global integration.
“Beyond North America,” they write, “the greatest danger is not that governments will retaliate against U. S. misdeeds, but that they will emulate them. Buy-national and source-local policies would create new barriers to international trade and impede global recovery. The G-20 commitments were meant to preempt such measures, but are not being honoured.”
As it stands now, the Wax-man-Markey climate change bill comes up short in protecting the environment but goes a long way in promoting U. S, protectionism. The Senate has an opportunity to dramatically improve this badly-flawed legislation. For the sake of all Americans, and friends and partners such as Canada, I hope the Senate has more important priorities than scoring shallow political victories. – David Wilkins served as U. S. ambassador to Canada from 2005-2009. He is a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, and chairs the Public Policy and International Law practice group.
We all know that global warming is a fraud. But we do not have the means to persuade the American public of this truth. The Left owns the media and universities where this hogwash is inculcated into the minds of clueless Americans.
Even Bill O’Reilly still propounds the idea of global warming so he is confusing many conservatives over this matter. I would like to see Chris Horner debate O’miserable about this but it will not happen; O’goofy would not want to be embarassed. And Fox is quietly moving left anyway…
This issue is not about saving the world, it is about accuring power and wealth. Look at the ties companies like GE and individuals like Gore and Soros have with the administration. And this administration knows once it gains control over the power of production (and health care), it will control the nation.
The destruction of the US by the Left will be complete.
“Most scientists are liberals, and like so many on the Left they think that a little lying to the public can’t be all bad.”
Translation: because we hate liberals, and because scientists are liberals, we reflexively distrust science and automatically discount any information that is generated by the scientific community.
Why is the right wing in this country so committed to catapulting this country back into the dark ages? If I wanted to live in a backwards, illiterate, science-fearing idiocracy, I’d move to Afganistan.
Taken from a book I’d read recently which coincides with such a discussion:
Ideological organizations can’t afford rational considerations. Start thinking rationally, and the whole thing falls apart. Ideological organizations like to force their foot soldiers (a Greenpeace irritant tried to sell me on his propaganda recently at the subway.. haha) into no-way-out operations. To encourage persistence. The same way explosive belts are sewn together in back, not zippered or snapped.
Mike W said: ‘If I wanted to live in a backwards, illiterate, science-fearing idiocracy..’
Science fearing!? Did you not JUST read the article? There’s no science supporting AGW supporters leg to stand on!
I work in the meteorological field. My colleagues and I cringe when we see these yahoos who don’t fathom science speak of AGW.
No worries Mike W. Your backwards, illiterate lifestyle is-a-coming. Albeit it’ll be provided by the same people who believe ‘We’ can change the planet’s natural state.. (scary group think idiocy)
AGW deniers generally share a common financial interest in promoting their views. That’s why I was not surprised that the first “reference” in the article is to a commercial outlet for Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is a Professor of Mining Geology with a background in the mining industry. His expertise in climate science is questionable, to be generous – his financial and career interests are transparent.
Although his book has proven popular with a certain segment of the public, it has been widely panned in the scientific community, simply because the “science” content is nothing but a series of cherry-picked primary sources, selected without regard for accuracy or veracity.
The “technological revolution” that is needed to halt global warming is not “unimaginable” except to those whose imaginations have ceased to function. Without engaging in the work to bring about this revolution, we are doomed to a future of dwindling fossil fuel resources, ongoing climate disruption, and eventually a very nasty and rapid rise in sea level worldwide due to continued carbon emissions.
There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place. Wholesale rejection of mainstream scientific thought (“I will never believe the British Medical Journal again, and I have real doubts about the Lancet. The journals Nature and Science have become shockingly corrupt and dishonest on global warming.”) is one of the sure signs of late-stage global warming denial.
If the GOP continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW, and relies on the pseudo-scientists of the world for support, it truly is one of the worst times for science. Peer-review and broad consensus are the basis of scientific knowledge, and AGW deniers fail miserably on both counts. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that refutes the well-documented long-term warming that has been observed since the beginning of scientific measurements, and the broad consensus supports theories that recognize the impact of human activity on the global environment.
It is the best of times, in the sense that science can identify and propose remedies for the damage that humans do to their environment, and technology provides the tools to made these changes. It is only the political mechanism that is paralyzed by oligarchy. But even the biggest players in the fossil fuel game can see the their future will be very different. It is not possible to deny the science forever, as the consequences of warming are becoming more obvious every year.
Peace.
DS
“Translation: because we hate liberals, and because scientists are liberals, we reflexively distrust science and automatically discount any information that is generated by the scientific community.”
This has to be the most breathtakingly incompetent reading of an article that I have ever seen. Did you actually read what the author was saying?
“Why is the right wing in this country so committed to catapulting this country back into the dark ages?”
Why didn’t you actually read the article? His point was that the AGW fraud is in danger of destroying the credibility of real science.
“There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place.”
Have you ever priced out the “investment in infrastructure” for photovolatics? I really like the idea, both because I live out in the country, where grid power is unreliable, and because I don’t like seeing money going to countries where their turbans are wound too tight. But the costs of PV panels are so enormous that it is questionable whether they will ever pay for themselves. And PV is a well understood and developed technology.
Your statement is equivalent to saying, “A Ferrari isn’t really all that expensive of an automobile, once you have made the initial investment in the car.”
I would be a bit more impressed with the carbon-neutral claims if environmentalists weren’t aggressively hostile to nuclear power.
God I hate myself for this, but, DaveS: What are you and your lunatic believers in AGW going to do about China, India, Mexico who will not hamper their economies with global warming strictures, and now Austrailia who recently abandonded the sheeple global warmists crowd? Even Koyoto Japan is still a global warmists nightmare so it proves it does not work.
Next, what about what happened in Spain where 2 jobs were lost for every 1 green job made?
What about the fact that even if every nation curtailed their CO2 by the 2050 levels, it would only make a 1/10 of a degree difference.
“AGW deniers generally share a common financial interest in promoting their views.” And of course you do not see any financial interests by Gore, Goldman/Sachs, GE and other liberals in pushing forward with cap and tax???
“…cherry-picked primary sources…” If they are primary sources then they are valid. SO what is your point??? duh!!
“There is no downside in moving to a sustainable, carbon-neutral economy – it is in the end a cleaner and more cost effective way to power an economy once the investment in infrastructure is in place.” You have got to be kidding, right? How many people will be put out of work by this? How much will the cost of everything rise not to mention the looming inflation, because we have all become sheeple for global warming? Think China is laughing yet?
“If the GOP continues to ignore the overwhelming evidence of AGW, and relies on the pseudo-scientists of the world for support, it truly is one of the worst times for science. Peer-review and broad consensus are the basis of scientific knowledge, and AGW deniers fail miserably on both counts.” Cite your references for this.
Are you saying that AGW is a done deal? That there should be no more talk and discussion? That sounds awful fascist of you…..
I bet this post is not even yours. You have never been this eloquent.
14. Clayton E. Cramer,
The usual ‘suspects’ aka ‘trolls’ here have very poor reading and comprehension skills. Thank a Liberal teacher.
As to topic:
Yaknow what? It gets pretty crazy when we have more ‘Science FICTION’ than ‘SCIENCE’ these days.
Even Stephen Hawking bought the ‘global warming’ B.S. hook, line and STINKER.
Should we try to cure cancer? Nope.
Let’s learn to stop breathing in and out.
Pathetic.
There is no data showing human activity has significant, measurable effect on the climate.
P.S. This isn’t necessarily ‘on-topic’ but it’s a funny story:
A man who sold trees and shrubs and ornamental plants had a small lot next to a ‘Burger King’ drive-thru where car emissions were a constant. One day my husband and I visited his ‘lot’ because we wanted to buy an ornamental tree. We asked him why he had a lot right next to the BK drive-thru. His answer? The plants THRIVED on the carbon dioxide from the cars exhaust. His trees and plants were incredibly HEALTHY. LOL!
@14. Clayton E. Cramer:
” His point was that the AGW fraud is in danger of destroying the credibility of real science.”
Using pseudo-science to argue against AGW is the greater danger to scientific credibility. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that there is no science involved in the arguments against AGW theory. AGW denial is not based on sound science and principles of inquiry – it is pure politics and financed and supported by those who have a vested interest in continued fossil fuel extraction.
To make a point about the danger of destroying the credibility of real science, referencing some real science would be a good place to start.
Peace.
DS
When the thinkers of our times can reconcile geologic time with the daily weather forcast, and the newscycle journalists can reconcile with the epochal historians, then perhaps we can have more relativity in this event.
A limitiation on the pop scientist is in two operant factors: 1. Publish or perish, and 2. Grant money. (As in “this alarmist study may need more research.)
The instrumentation of measurement has been changing in magnatude every decade. The data of mercury thermal recorders is placed beside orbiting scanners that give continous recordings from under ocean to tropospheric. Add on factors such as ice collapse are squeezed into the general computer model. In scientific experimentation is is considered irregular to change one’s instrument during a measurement.
“Perhaps you haven’t noticed that there is no science involved in the arguments against AGW theory. AGW denial is not based on sound science and principles of inquiry – it is pure politics and financed and supported by those who have a vested interest in continued fossil fuel extraction.”
I notice that a lot of pretty significant scientists who have never received funding from the private sector have been raising questions about AGW.
“We all know that global warming is a fraud. But we do not have the means to persuade the American public of this truth.”
You know something, but you don’t have evidence that it is true?
lol, climate troofers. You guys are birfers too, right?
I know that pjm is largely American based, with a largely American audience. Why then the silence surrounding what Obama and his ilk are doing in regards to country to country relations with Canada?
Anyone?
“Stephen Hawking bought the ‘global warming’ B.S. hook, line and STINKER.”
Hawking is such an idiot! It’s a good thing actual smart people like Delia are here to help him out.
AGW proposed policy is an ends justifies the means policy. I fully agree that we need to move to alternate energy and reduce deforestation etc. etc. etc. but I am incensed when I read the rants of David S and the like. I have been involved in technology for 30+ years, understand the grant process, have dealt with PHD’s that buy supercomputers, so I know of what the author speaks.
Personally I would like to see the models the ‘scientists ‘ use to draw their conclusions. even if correct, they can’t control the CO2 variable adequately to make an impact. As Thomas Friedman said (and I don’t agree with him too much) as long as the population continues to grow (and people pursue the more comfortable US type lifestyle) this problem will get worse (if indeed it is as serious as claimed.
Notice how many of the proponents of this ‘theory’ were doomsayers regarding the population explosion fears of the 70′s.
This is about control, and one should be very worried about the intersection of this administrations policy’s to meet that end. Read between the lines.
Boris: “You know something, but you don’t have evidence that it is true?”
Obviously you do not read English well. The Left controls all manner of news dissemination including the MSM and colleges. So we on the right do not have the means of getting the TRUTH out. The evidence is all around, but the AGW sheeple will not allow us to talk about it in open forum.
25. Boris,
You’re welcome, hon. Glad I could be of service to your gray matter.
Boris is just a dhimmi troll. If hes not pimping islam it climate change. Both dangerous cults.
Man it sucks that all these stupid people are executing the greatest fraud in history against you guys. I feel for you all.
I like how Al Gore says that the consensus amongst scientists is that of global warming. Those who disagree are like those who believed the earth was flat. Of course what is not mentioned is that the consensus amongst all the learned of that time was that the earth was flat. I don’t think it is good science to rely on popular opinion.
David S is back to his usual rant about global warming deniers being unable to disprove his favorite unproven theory. Get some new material David. Next subject.
David S, the South Pole experienced it’s colder winter in 2007 since taking meteorological observations in 1958. Not to mention this winter is proving to be a record breaking cold season as well..
Please, share with me, from a scientific standpoint the areas which are getting warmer every year. I’ll say Africa is, for the sole reason of its people not cultivating the land properly.
The Chicago area is having its coolest summer in 40 years. Boy, that’s odd.
Many areas of Canada have had longer winters and shorter summers the last few years.
David S, I don’t think these areas got your warming memo…
Scientists are skeptics, by definition. The opposite of skepticism is faith. There’s no room in science for faith. At least, last time I checked. Is the pope running things again?
“Most scientists are liberals, and like so many on the Left they think that a little lying to the public can’t be all bad.”
Wow, Mr. Lewis. You’re a scientist? And you’re writing things like that?
Question: Can you prove scientifically that “the Left” is okay with lying to the public?
Perhaps…
But can you prove that scientists, since most of them are liberals, also endorse lying to the public?
I’d like to see you try….
Hey Boris: Instead of trying to be cute with your retorts because you cannot debate here like an adult. Take a look at this website:http:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-22_lq.pdf
Hopefully you will learn something assuming you can read. But also knowing how thoroughly indoctrinated you are–aka zombie–no matter what data you are presented, it will not help you see the truth. Because the truth to you is irrelevant.
Al Gore’s writing like “Earth in the Balance” prove he is stupid and dishonest. The best piece of evidence that Al is an idiot is that he believes himself.
#34 “Scientists are skeptics, by definition. The opposite of skepticism is faith. There’s no room in science for faith. At least, last time I checked. Is the pope running things again?”
Huh? I would think that scientists are more into discovery not skepticism.
And funny you should write, but it seems that the GWS community are the ones spouting ‘end times scenarios’. Funny.
The GW crowd doesn’t necessarily want to deny themselves modern conveniences just deny them to everyone else.
“it is pure politics and financed and supported by those who have a vested interest in continued fossil fuel extraction.””
Not just crap, but slanderous crap.. I’d love for Algor to get sued for libel by the many decent, honorable scierntist he has so maligned.
How about, “it is pure politics and financed and supported by those who have a vested interest in the carbon-credit market and selling wind turbines.”
After all, it is the AGW industry (Hansen, Mann, NOAA, etc) who are the ones perpetually fudging or forging data to support their predeterminations. If AGW is ‘true’ why does it need to be propped up with fraud?
What does science matter when you have money? I read today that the Democratic House Majority Whip Clyburn was busy buying votes for the Climate Change Bill. My representative Alan Grayson got $2,000 for his vote. I wonder how much he will get for his vote on healthcare?
Sorry, blotto, no adults here. What facts did James Lewis present? None.
BTW, I’m familiar with Joanne Nova and I’ve commented on her blog. She claims there is no empirical evidence to suggest that CO2 causes warming and I presented her with several analyses which show that AGW is empirically supported.
Of course, if you believe that all scientists are liars, then you can just dismiss this evidence. You can’t argue with conspiracy theorists.
Has anyone compared James Hansen to Lysenko yet? There are some interesting historical parallels.
Ike: “Question: Can you prove scientifically that “the Left” is okay with lying to the public?
Obama! Dems! Progressives! You pick the topic and they will lie about it.
Perhaps…
But can you prove that scientists, since most of them are liberals, also endorse lying to the public?”
Yep! See who funded their projects which allowed them to come to the conclusions that AGW is real. “Peer reveiwed” by themselves is not independent review. If their benefactors want AGW to be real, they will make it seem real-enough.
I think most scientists are interested in their own fields and tend to trust other scientists without really digging into their work. This is probably why many are liberals: they don’t devote their energy to studying social and political issues. The debate over climate change doesn’t disturb me as much as the idiotic plans to reduce CO2 admisssions. The latter are fueled by people who want to control us, feel important and in, or simply want to use a lot of big words they don’t understand. There will be changes in our energy sources away from fossil fuels, but there will not be one big master plan that fits all circumstances. There will be lots of tiny little changes made on a scale that doesn’t disrupt whole societies. Economic and world political factors will push this movement, but I think most people will get tired of the AGW hype and look to people more sensible than Al Gore and Hollywood types to guide them.
AGW is based on computer models. When those computer models can recreate the last 150 years of climate cycles for the world THEN I will think about what it says about the next 50 years. So far these models (that will save the earth) can’t recreate what we knows about climate for those last 150 years.
The global cooling of the last 10 years are a real bitch for the AGW crowd also.
I am a geologist with a Master’s degree and 30 years of experience in the real world. I stopped reading the professional science journals several years ago because of their promotion of man-made global warming. I have also had hundreds of conversations with non-scientists about climate change and the history of the Earth. It quickly became clear that our society has very little understanding of how science works because they have no background in it thanks to public education.
Scientific facts are not determined by a majority vote or who has the best publicists. They are determined by repeating detailed experiments and coming up with the same results over and over again.
I don’t know if the Earth is cooling or warming but it is a moot point because the Earth is always warming or cooling and is seldon stagnant. Either way, there is nothing we can do about it. Trying to gauge the trend of the Earth’s temperature over a short time period of several hundred years, considering the Earth has been around for over 4 billion years, is like trying to predict what you will do all day by observing you for only 1 second. It can be done but it will not be acurate.
46. Sandman,
EXACTLY right, Sandman. Also, ‘Mother Earth’ sends her own brand of pollutants into the ‘air’ with volcanic explosions, earthquakes and brush fires.
To think that ‘man’ is making a ‘huge’ impact on planet earth is pure vanity.
“Huh? I would think that scientists are more into discovery not skepticism.”
Richard Feynman wrote, on several occasions, that a scientist’s highest obligation is to prove himself wrong. Obviously, no such mindset has ever animated the likes of Hansen, Mann, Holdren, etc. (I omit any mention of Gore, since Gore is not a scientist.)
Scientists are properly skeptical about grandiose, ill-informed, and grossly over-the-top pronouncements, with little-or-no-basis in fact.
We will destroy each other before we ever destroy ‘earth’. Earth has survived a lot more than just ‘man’.
I agree with Gary J
Science is not about popularity.
Science has always progressed by discoveries which conflict with previous beliefs. As a result, popularity must be totally ignored.
The worst of all this is GOREBULL philosophy is the resultant “Chicken Little” panic.
The sky is not falling.
Boris: Frist, Lewis was talking about how the message of AGW by the left is not allowing for the whole truth to be read and discussed. He was not trying to disprove AGW. Geez. Read some!!
Next, give us your references that you used to refute JoanneNova. We’ll see how good they are.
Lastly, “Of course, if you believe that all scientists are liars, then you can just dismiss this evidence.”
Geez, Boris. This is sixth grade debate tactics. I guess next you will call me a racist. Neandethal??
It seems that it is ALGORE and the left who has dismissed many scientists who disagree with them; ALGORE has gone as far as to say, “the debate is over.” Chris Horner has challenged ALGORE who declined.. Wonder why.
OK, Boris and David S:
What evidence would have to be presented to invalidate AGW? A true scientific theory has to be disprovable.
#48
Thank you, and I think that would be a healthy skepticism with the greatest attainment being a discovery.
I object to it being called the opposite of faith #34, implying that a true scientist would be unable to have faith.
Geez, Boris. This is sixth grade debate tactics…It seems that it is ALGORE and the left…
I respectfully disagree. Making fun of somebody’s name is FOURTH-grade debate tactics.
Non-scientists like Al Gore don’t have what it takes to speak knowledgeably about global warming. Only non-scientists like us know the truth.
Satellite data and ocean sensors have recently shown that the mechanisms purported by the AGW models do not exist. I.E. the models have been PROVEN wrong. Game over.
55. Blarty Blarckleblart,
-And the IRONY award goes toooooo
Al Gore! He’s got one of the BIGGEST carbon foot-prints on the planet!
HA! -And, I doubt he farts blueberry pie out of his tuckus.
Oziripus:
I did. See if you can find some my posts in the PJM and Hotair archives.
Scientists are as we speak, studying whether Blarty Blarckleblart’s Blarts are contributing to Global Warming.
The non-scientific community, although not knowledgable about the discovery process, all agree that whether his Blarts contribute to GW or not, their is no question that THEY STINK!
All agree that the world is a smellier place because of Blarty Blarckleblart’s Blarts.
Here is a list of PH.d’s that think a certain way about climate change. Edward Teller leads the way, this somewhat well known physicist picked up a Noble Prize in his field. http://www.petitionproject.org/ There is over 31,000 of this calibre of of individual who have signed the petition, the actual petition is here. This is just part of the A’s:
Signers A
900 Signers Out of 31,072 Total in US
Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Paul Abbett, Wyatt E. Abbitt III, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David M. Abbott Jr., Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, David J. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Riaz F. Abdulla, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H. Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD, Robert C. Abrams, Carl M. Abrams, Alan V. Abrams, MD, Paul B. Abramson, PhD,
Many more to follow and they all say the same thing, try to figure out what they are saying?
Really, I don’t know what all the global warming nuts are so excited about.
Everybody knows the world is going to end in 2012 anyway, so what’s the point?
>;)
57 Delia
You forgot to mention that Al Gore is also fat, which I believe is central to your point.
59 Lynn
I like you. You’ve got chops.
“Next, give us your references that you used to refute JoanneNova. We’ll see how good they are.”
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html
Also, you said “We all know that global warming is a fraud.” Doesn’t this mean that you think any scientists who support AGW theory are lying? Sorry if I misread you, but if you think AGW is a fraud and the royal society supports AGW you are implying that they are involved in the fraud, no?
Pop quiz, hotshots. Which presidential administration issued an official report that included, in its Executive Summary, the following statement?
“Our understanding of climate change continues to grow, enabling scientists to draw increasingly certain conclusions about its causes and impacts. For example, in their most recent assessment of climate change science, the IPCC concluded that it is unequivocal that the average temperature of Earth’s surface has warmed recently and it is very likely (greater than 90%
probability) that most of this global warming is due to increased concentrations of human-generated greenhouse gases. Several lines of evidence, including those outlined in the following sections, point to a strong human influence on climate. Although these individual lines of evidence vary in their degrees of certainty, when considered together they provide a compelling and scientifically sound explanation of the changes to Earth’s climate—including changes in surface temperature, ice extent, and sea level rise—observed at global and continental scales over the past few decades.”
Here’s a hint: it wasn’t the Gore Administration.
Aaah a breath of fresh air!
“What evidence would have to be presented to invalidate AGW? A true scientific theory has to be disprovable.”
A fair question. AGW is a complex combination of many sciences, which is why there is a great deal of confidence in the theory in the scientific community. It is clear and proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Moreover, the amount by which CO2 alone will raise temps is known and constrained by the physics of the atoms themselves.
So the basic concept of warming the surface when CO2 is added to the atmosphere would be difficult to “disprove” Remember this is based on over a hundred years of detailed and repeated observation in a variety of settings by generations of scientists.
However, whether CO2 will have a “large” impact could easily be disproved if:
1. Temperatures over long time scales begin to dip outside of expected natural variability. (Of all the talk about “cooling” from folks like Plimer the current temps are not significantly below the long term trend. 1998 was a good deal farther above the trend than 2008 was below it.)
2. The discovery of some negative feedback mechanism. Or the discovery that positive feedbacks are not as strong as they have been observed to be so far.
Neither one of those outcomes is very likely. In fact it is just as likely that we will find an undiscovered positive feedback as an undiscovered negative one.
We are currently in an El Nino episode that could last well into 2010. I expect a new record temperature will be set quite soon. I’d say there’s a 75% chance 2010 becomes the warmest year on record.
Blarty: What do you disagree with? ALGORE, Boris’ debate tactics, your lack of debate wherewithal, AGW, your attempt to make a rebuttal based on a person’s name and its spelling, that I spelled it ALGORE, what??? If you can’t come up with better tactics and the intellectual capacity to debate then stay on the children’s sites like Kos or HuffPO. Oh, did I spell that correctly, Blarty???
Tell us Blarty what evidence do you have that AGW exists and that humans cause it. You who have not written one cogent refutation of the article, or the skeptics of AGW. Until then don’t try to earn points by feigning indignation at poking fun at the way I spell ALGORE.
48, thank you. Dixy Lee Ray (Washington’s greatest Governor) said something to the same effect. But then she was branded a “denier” for it. So is Feynman a “denier”?
Dude! You owe me a new buzz. That was Uncool!
Science has also found that eating too much milk and meat products [especially cheeses because they are more 'concentrated'] actually LEECHES the calcium from our bones because it causes acids to form in our bloodstream which needs to be ‘buffered’ by alkaline foods and if you don’t introduce an alkaline food into your diet WITH your milk and meat, you are actually doing your body harm [especially for women].
Now, did it take a scientist to warn you to eat your vegetables with dinner? No. It took MOM to tell ya that!
Science is not a static ‘thing’.
“So the basic concept of warming the surface when CO2 is added to the atmosphere would be difficult to ‘disprove’”
If you can’t disprove it, it’s not science.
“Neither one of those outcomes is very likely.” And what is your scientific basis for saying that?
Oh, Jezzuz P. Kadiddlehopper on a pogo stick. I mean, really. Are you so dumb that you really believe such non-sequiturs?
Let me fill you in. Science isn’t a rhetorical discipline. What you say actually has to make some sort of sense. Preferably with some rigorous math (which btw includes logic) behind it.
In other words, your body will leech calcium from your BONES to ‘buffer’ the acidity in your blood stream.
Google ‘Alkaline foods’.
For women, this is especially important.
Sorry to digress so horribly off-topic-ish.
67 blotto
I was merely poking fun at your accusing someone of using sixth-grade debating tactics and then immediately making fun of Al Gore’s name. You basically said “I’m more mature than a sixth-grader, poopyhead.”
As for evidence, have you looked at the links Boris provided, or my link to the non-Gore Administration’s report on global warming?
#62 I like you too Blarty, your good for my heart, the more you blart the better I feel.
“Moreover, the amount by which CO2 alone will raise temps is known and constrained by the physics of the atoms themselves.”
Absolute horseshit. The CO2 forcing factor remains no more than a guesstimate, xcalibrated to fit whichever doomsday curve the author is promoting.
You also know bloody well (or should) that the whole greenhouse model is based on assumed positive feedback which remains essentially a fantasy, like Harris’s famous cartoon:
http://socsci2.ucsd.edu/~aronatas/project/cartoon.math.gif
Most to the point, however, are those tinkertoy computer models with an established predictive value of precisely *zero*
And the inconvenient cooling of the poast decade, of course.
“What you say actually has to make some sort of sense. Preferably with some rigorous math (which btw includes logic) behind it.”
Those things aren’t exactly priorities in the humanities departments that spawn the world’s Blarty Mcshadows and sheesh/jharps.
Well that’s great. Only the last half of my last two comments got through moderation which makes my last comment look completely silly. lol
“Oh, Jezzuz P. Kadiddlehopper on a pogo stick. I mean, really. Are you so dumb that you really believe such non-sequiturs?”
How is saying that the AGW theory comprises well established elements from many related scientific fields a non-sequitor? Feel free to actually read and comment on the papers I posted.
“The CO2 forcing factor remains no more than a guesstimate…”
You have no idea what you are talking about. The first principles effect of CO2 is undisputed in the literature has been undisputed for 50 years. Cite a study that shows I’m wrong on this.
“We should be celebrating good science.”
There is a temptation to try to use science to support faith. Climate change alarmism is a faith-based religion, that attempts to corrolate dogma with science. Iconoclasm is required to disavow this false faith — good science alone cannot convince them otherwise.
How do we know science is being abused in the name of faith? The same people who would deny the apocalypse of another’s God claim that global warming leads to an apocalypse. Apparently, it is shameful and dishonest when someone believes in the “wrong” apocalypse. If we are not facing an apocalypse due to global warming, how does that differ from the apocalypse of the bad economy, health care, or any other “crisis” where “inaction is not an option?”
Anecdotally where I live, for the last five years it’s been the coldest that I can remember. We usually get a day or two of snow a year which quickly melts. This year we had snow on the ground most of the winter. But to the GW believers cold weather is a sign of GW, as well as warm or hot weather also normal weather is a sign of GW. They have all the bases covered.You cannot argue with them because they are rigid and dogmatic thinkers typical of most religious cults.
The climate peer-review system has been thoroughly corrupted:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
Read that account and you’ll never again trust the peer-review process. Shameful!
And I see that Boris and DavidS are sadly not up to speed on the subject of AGW; the fact is that as the beneficial trace gas CO2 continues to rise, the planet continues to cool — thus FALSIFYING the debunked notion that carbon dioxide causes any measurable global warming. Or maybe they buy into the latest explanation for the declining global temperature: that “global warming causes global cooling.” Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.
A great way to get up to speed on the bogus AGW scam is to visit this year’s Winner of the Weblog Awards for “BEST SCIENCE” site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
[The AGW propaganda site realclimate only got ONE-TENTH the number of votes that wattsupwiththat got.]
Hold onto your wallets any time someone tries to tell you that an increase in a beneficial trace gas, from four parts in 10,000 to five parts in 10,000, will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe [and yes, the AGW wackos really believe that nonsense]. <— lookin’ at YOU, Boris. And DavidS, time to move out of your mom’s basement and get a girl friend. Posting your dopey beliefs here is a dead end.
150,000 years ago the entire NE US was covered by glaciers. Long before man arrived on the scene, those glaciers began to receed. They are now far up in the NE corner of Canada. May I ask all those who believe in Global Warming to explain how that happened before man arrived?
Global Warming advocates also claim that scientist who question Global Warming are only doing so because they are representing big business. Please tell me why you fail to mention the huge research grants that GW scientists are getting at major universities. You think they are only manufactoring these results for some altruistic purpose?
79. Boris:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
The result of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not have any measurable effect on the planet’s temperature. But you go ahead and worry about it if you like. The grown-ups here know you’re frightened about a black cat in your dark bedroom — but when you turn on the light… there’s no cat! And there never was.
Tell us, Boris, what’s it like living your life in fear of a non-existent boogeyman? Sucks to be so frightened all the time, doesn’t it?
Let the record show that Boris is taking half of a quote, and then disputing it. That’s called a “strawman” argument.
What is really ridiculous and insane about the controversy surrounding Climate Change theory is how manufactured it is. The only reason that the right wing hates the theory is because of An Inconvenient Truth and the fact that the right wing hates the crap out of Al Gore and just can’t stand that this smug liberal is trying to teach them something. That’s what this whole issue comes down to. Had a Republican made “An Inconvenient Truth”, Global Warming wouldn’t even be a political issue. And given that the vast majority of the scientific community does believe that humanity’s impact on climate change is measurable, it shouldn’t be an issue anyhow. And yet, because a liberal politician who was critical of Bush won an Nobel Prize, the right wing suddenly became a 5 year old – calling Al Gore names, disrespectng the scientific community, disrespecting the Nobel Prize, holding up its hands to its ears, and basically discounting science simply because it emanated from the mouth of a smug liberal that they don’t like.
What I can’t figure out is why the Bush Administration was in on the conspiracy to promote the horrible fraudulent AGW myth. What did Bush have to gain?
I don’t expect that — if the whole AGW thing does indeed turn out to be a fraud — people will be fired or prosecuted. What I expect instead is a great big collective “NEVER MIND!”
The biggest weaknesses of the AGW crowd are: 1) the whole crusade follows the same dreary pattern as all the other alarmisms of decades past, which all collapsed when further scientific evidence either minimized (the usual case) or outright debunked the alarmists. Massive famines, ozone layer depletion, Radon scares, breast implants and autoimmune disorders, electric power lines as harmful, asbestos as universally harmful, Love Canal a dead zone, and on and on, the activist/environmentalist/progressive highway is littered with the corpses of past “dangers,” for which none of the debunked individuals and communities feel the least bit of embarrassment (nor did they suffer professionally for their follies). 2) the fact that it is the alarmists among the believers, and not the more sober scientists who believe in AGW, who are being heard and who are making policy. Many AGW-proponent scientists — especially climatologists — do not expect the oceans to rise 20 ft, or all ice to disappear from the Arctic, or whatever. A plurality of Americans (41% according to one poll), believe that AGW is exaggerated. That leaves some 60% divided among three groups: the ones who believe the alarmist (probably the second largest group), the ones who consider this a total fraud, and those who just don’t know either way. 3) The pushback by deniers is getting bigger, bolder, and more authoritative, and also demonstrates that there are quite a few scientists who don’t ascribe to AGW. Now, if you add up the different categories of scientists who are either moderate on AGW and those who are deniers, and stack them up against the alarmist scientists, you get roughly the same distribution of opinion as the American public! I mean, what the Hell, you know? This means that the political class and their media allies, almost all alarmists, are at marked odds to both a majority of Americans, and a majority of actual experts. Not good for AGW proponents, I’d say.
We have other attendant issues which people are beginning to notice: crackpot statements and proposals by leading alarmists. Forget Gore, who is such an obvious clown, but how about Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, proposing that we might have to inject huge amount of SO2 into the stratosphere to cool down the planet? Other alarmists have suggested dumping iron filings into the ocean to make it absorb more CO2 or something. Great: destroy the environment to “save the planet.” This is crazy stuff no matter how you look at it, and it’s coming from people in charge — NOT good if you want to keep people on board with “fighting” AGW, especially when you are telling them outright that their lives are going to become a lot more expensive and restricted as a result of your well-meaning efforts. Great sales job, AGW weenies!
It came as a surprise to me that global warming alarmism has been with us for well over two decades. I was watching a movie yesterday made in the late 80′s with the same scare tactics you hear today. This means that scientist went directly from global cooling hysteria to warming in a couple of years.
Here’s a quote from Al Gore’s hero and mentor, Professor Paul Ehrlich made in 1968, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″. Good thing Professor Ehrlich was not a gambler.
you really are a prime fool…
don’t know how to use google?… do you not check your sources…
100 years of science overturned by an error-strewn pop-science rant?…
how to use google… how to check your sources… ian+plimer+error
first page of hits turns up…
michael ashley in the australian;
ian enting;
he even fails basic logic and climate processes 101…
… the list goes on to 124 points
tim lambert
you guys…
it’s like a small ship of conservatives got shipwrecked on some island in the 80′s and they’ve turned into savages…
the republican equivalent of 911 truthers…
except with most the party clinging on… a bunch of sad old crooks…
at least the msm show a pretense of balance so they get things half right most of the time…
ah the golden era of the new media… what was that meant to bring again?
In the report on the “current state” of AGW released by the White House a few weeks ago, Holdren claimed that the then-recent spate of heavy rain in many parts of the U.S. was caused by global warming. Do you “believers” understand what I’m getting at here? Here’s a “scientist” working for the White House trying to tell you that a periodic weather phenomenon is caused by catastrophic man-made activity. Also, I had always remembered the old AGW mantra was that, among other things, AGW would cause severe and prolonged droughts, not sustained periods of rain. As for his insane SO2 proposal, SO2 is a major industrial pollutant that we have been fighting for decades now as part of the original environmental consciousness whose body has now been invaded by AGW hysteria. See what I mean? Good old fashioned environmentalism is being sabotaged by AGW zealots. SO2, according to scientists studying a phenomenon they’ve dubbed “global dimming,” may increase chances of drought, because the SO2 breaks up water droplets in the clouds so they’re too small to precipitate. Or so they say. I reserve judgment on their theory precisely because it has become problematic to accept scientific “proof” anymore. All I know is, if this SO2/drought thing has any validity, then we can expect Holdren’s crackpot SO2 bombardment of the stratosphere to have catastrophic consequences for vegetation and crops. By the way, Holdren is one of the original charlatans who promised us 9-10 billion people on Earth by the end of the 20th century. The actual number isn’t even 7 billion yet. Back then he and his cohorts proposed putting sterilizing agents in water supplies, and enforced abortions.
For the REAL sake of the planet and humanity, environmentalism has to be rescued from these crazies.
Actually, he was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon’s favor.
D’oh!
“Tell us, Boris, what’s it like living your life in fear of a non-existent boogeyman? Sucks to be so frightened all the time, doesn’t it?”
Your graph was lolstupid. I liked the “University of Chicago” label on it.
“Let the record show that Boris is taking half of a quote, and then disputing it. That’s called a “strawman” argument.”
Let me get this straight, you call yourself “strawman” and yet you don’t know what a strawman argument is?
You: Pi is 3.96, and is calibrated to make whatever doomcircle alarmists want.
Me: pi is 3.14
You: STRAWMAN!
Me: [facepalm]
Conservatives and Republicans should really, REALLY stay away from the topic of Global Warming. Nothing says “I’m an anti-science, clueless moron” quite like calling Global Warming/Climate Change a fraud. I’m not going to debate it here, because there’s nothing to debate – the amount of *real* evidence that has been collected and analyzed by *real* scientists working in the field — aka people who know what the f*ck they are doing — is unmistakable and can’t interpreted any other way.
You can pull as many half-baked factoids out how many dopey, non-scientific sources as you want, but that will still make you a moron. You can be your own scientist and try to use your local weather and your *analysis* of NASA data as the smoking gun for it all being a liberal conspiracy, but that will only make you a bigger moron. You and your friends can run as many puppets as you want in trying to “add balance” to the Wikipedia article on Global Warming, but that will only make you both vandals and morons. Something like “fiscal responsibility” is good thing to put your saddle on, and *not* eye-rollingly stupid stuff like global warming being some sort of anti-science fraud.
And an aside to Kyle: No, the Lancet article on the Iraqi casualties was pretty much in the ballpark, and verified by later, *independent* (not involving the Iraqi government) studies like <a href="http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html"this.
Left off a bracket: the link should be this.
#88… “NEVER MIND”!, sort of like the global cooling hysteria of the 70′s? I do not think they bothered to say never mind.
You: 12 years old?
Okay- why did none of you Global Warming advocates answer my question about the melting of the Glaciers 150,000 yeares ago? Please also explain the raising temps on the surface of Mars. Explain how, since the sun activities have lessened in the past few years, we have actually been seen a “DROP” in temperatures.
I bike, run and swim everyday for hours outside, and I can tell you that this is the coolest July I can ever remember. Since I live on an island, I can also tell you that the water levels have not been rising. We are coming into an El Nino faze, so I assume the water temp will be going up a bit this fall, but this is not a man-made occurance.
Don’t give me the “Al Gore won the Nobel prize, so he must be right” argument. The Nobel committee are dedicated leftists. Go ahead and watch them give the peace prize to Arafat, and explain how they bypassed Reagan.
bc
the attitude seems to be as roger l simon described…
“If the buyers buy, who cares?”
… so much for the ‘new’ media
quite… anyone who’s serious will do the work studying… anyone who won’t do the work is interested in nonsense alone… james lewis…
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig.” — Mark Twain
“Your graph was lolstupid.”
Don’t you have a WoW thread to troll junior?
#100 Tri Geek….This is also the coolest July I can remember, and by the way, I live only 3 miles from Al Gore’s 8,000 sq foot mansion. Temps on Sat and Sun are forcasted to be 56 low and 78 high. I am looking forward to a spring like weekend. Unfortunately to cool for the pool.
Why do I even try? Beam me up, Bullwinkle…
Science is about skepticism because science cannot prove anything; science can only prove things wrong and develop explanations based on evidence. What science cannot do is ever pronounce anything affirmatively true.
BC, take an aspirin and lie down. This is a GW thread, not an Iraq war thread.
For the rest of the gorons trying to make sense, don’t look now, but the planet itself is falsifying the central Alarmist belief that CO2 = AGW:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2msu.jpg
See? There is no real correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature. None, really; 0.07 R-squared correlation is way down in the noise. If that correlation was a hundred times higher, it would still be extremely weak. Mother Earth is telling us that CO2 does not cause global warming — despite Al Gore’s foaming at the mouth.
I understand why Boris hates this chart…
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0115707ce438970b-pi
…it smashes the debunked CO2=AGW conjecture to bits. The logarithmic response to any additional CO2 is so tiny that it can be completely disregarded. And it certainly doesn’t justify spending $Trillions on a non-problem.
The gorons don’t want you to know this, either:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gif
And… Everbody panic!!:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-100.gif
[Look real close]
For most of the past decade global temperatures have been steady to declining. But during that entire time, CO2 has been steadily increasing. Conclusion: CO2 does not cause measurable global warming.
And in the geologic past, CO2 levels have been twenty times higher than today’s — with no runaway global warming:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2600millionSPPI.jpg
Don’t look now, but the planet is laughing at the hubris of the goron contingent.
rofl I find this comical how people around here want to define science and they are the same ones that believe in unproven “gods”.
interesting combination.
btw, a cool July does not make a trend. There’s a difference between weather and climate. and on that note I am going to go talk to a deity.
#107..Please excuse us. Many of the regulars here, including me, are old farts, and missed out on the left-wing indoctrination.
Mike W, Boris, and David S are beginnning to make Joe Biden look positively brilliant.
Tom: How about the warming trend that melted the glacier that covered the NE US 150,000 years ago. Does that count? How many SUV’s were running around back then? What is your explanation for the threats of the next global ice age that ran rampant throughout the science community in the 70′s? You guys are so flippant about how stupid we conservatives are, but every time the left jumps on the newest “sky is falling” craze, they get proven wrong. So why are we stupid? Why did it get changed from Global Warming to Global Climate Change? I guess you ‘smart guys’ have to cover your bases.
Geek, any dolt, yourself included, knows there are trends thru history. Though I am surprised you accept the Ice Age as it had to have been before Noah. Anyway, there’s a clear trend since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Coincidence? Maybe. Only god knows that correlation. haha. But the trend cannot be denied.
As for why the name was changed? It was poorly named to begin with as J6P is too dumb to differentiate between weather and climate.
But to prove your judgement and assumptions of me wrong, I tend to fall more in the “sun spot” theory camp than anything else. I think humans have an impact, but the impact of the sun is much stronger.
Lastly, without a massive dose of global warming, we won’t be getting the next pools of oil. After all, it’s what created the oil we now consume. Of course the human race will be long extinct, but at least there will be more oil.
31,478 scientist, including Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen Bomb, signed this linked petition. The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. This is not some “climate-change-denying fringe.” Then follows 12 pages of text and graphs, all referenced, indicating that temperature is more a function of solar activity. It concludes there is no reason to limit man made CO2.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
We need more energy, not less and it must be affordable, if we as a nation wish to maintain our standard of living for our children and grandchildren
Tom: As a “dolt” why can’t I assume what we are experiencing now is a normal trend, and not something that “Must” be manmade? You confirmed my beliefs that much of the warming we experienced since the start of the industrial revolution may be just as likely to be caused by the high levels of sun activity. What has it been, an amazing 1 degree C? You claim it is was simply named wrong, how convenient. They claim it will be the end of the world, then…. sorry wrong name.
By the way, why assume I am Christian? Interesting jump in logic. I guess you have this bias that only Christians could be blind/stupid enough to not believe man is destroying the earth.
So, smart guy… tell me what the weather will be next year, and please tell me what the water level will be.
Funny- how many of Al Gore’s Global Warming seminars were cancelled last year due to snow? Karma.
To correct one earlier commenter, Edward Teller never received a Nobel Prize. Although, to be sure, he was a superior physicist (like many others who also never received a Nobel Prize; including several others, like Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein, who could just as easily have received another two or three.)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/what_climate_change_can_do_for.html
Draw your own conclusions.
Man caused flying is an ignorant red state belief Orville and wilbur Wright don’t even have a science degree in astronomy they obviously are being subsidized by the gas engine cabal. Further more a poll of leading scientist agree that they are frauds. Mark my words the bumble bee will never fly.
BC, saying ‘Republicans and Conservatives’ can’t debate AGW is ignorant. Your comment of nothing to debate for the ‘debate is over’ is truly frightening. To make such a claim regarding science shows your truest form of ignorance. Childish.
Your use of emotion, not fact to back up your mundane comments is your repertoire. Name calling and other insults. You’re a small person.
For man to have the gumption to control weather is astounding.
I’ll use BC’s ‘rationale’ regarding the ‘obtuse-minded Conservative/ Republican’ population.
Jewish people can’t discuss Islam. Peace Corps folks can’t discuss the ups and downs of handguns. Marine Corps folks can’t discuss gardening. Vegetarians can’t have a lucid discussion regarding chicken.
Idiotic, I know. I’m just following BC’s suit..
Each side claims the other is scientifically ignorant. What’s a concerned citizen to do, in an attempt to get at the truth?
I suggest reading and following up on comments 83, 85, and 106. The author is well informed, on target, and has provided excellent links. He deserves everyone’s thanks.
BTW the hockey stick graph, one of the most powerful “scientific” constructs in AGW propaganda, is a proven hoax, as you will see if you look again at comment 83. The post at the BishopHill site is not easy reading, but go slowly, and you will appreciate just how devious the rascals behind the AGW fraud are.
#20 David S –
Try this on for size:
http://www.nipccreport.org/
I have to admire your loyalty, you ignorant puppy.
“I understand why Boris hates this chart…”
It’s wrong and it’s not even sourced properly. Where did it come from? You guys will believe anything.
From the real U. of Chicago, here’s a resource where you can plug in CO2 values yourself:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
“Each side claims the other is scientifically ignorant. What’s a concerned citizen to do, in an attempt to get at the truth?”
Every scientific organization that studies the climate supports AGW. Every single one. Now, James Lewis and you claim that it’s because they are all committing fraud.
You guys are just as dumb as 911 truthers.
Geek, you proved my point. “Tell me what the weather is”. Again, we’re not talking weather but anyone that is AGW says, well it’s cold today in July, so much for that theory.
Until you understand the difference between weather and climate, it’s pointless to argue.
Let me try to put this “debate” into context: did any of you, when you first learned about how supposedly nothing can travel faster than light, ever come up with your own “solutions” to getting around that? Like, oh say, traveling in a spaceship 5 miles/hr below the speed of light and then launching a missile that will then travel ahead at 1000 mi/hr? That might seem logical and commonsensical, but it won’t work, and understanding why it won’t work requires some understanding of some stuff not so logical and commonsensical seeming, like Special Relativity and Lorentz transformations.
The same thing applies to Global Warming — the Earth’s climate is a very, very complex multi-multivariate system, and it took decades of observation and research to even imagine that human activity could affect something globally and something so seemingly vast at first glance. But the Earth’s biosphere is like a very thin coating of paint on a big round boulder — we’re not concerned about the boulder itself, it’s the coating that we live in and sustains us. When you see the Earth from far above and see the clouds and the sea and the continents, you are looking at something so thin that it’s like looking at the colors made by a drop of oil in a puddle on a sunny day. If you think of how far and wide human activity has spread over the planet, and how we’re now depleting things that at one point were also believed to be so vast and unaffectable, like ocean fish stocks and underground oil, it *should* then occur to you that it’s not exactly much of a stretch to think that the vast amounts of pollutants and contaminants we’ve been putting out willy-nilly the past hundred years or so may not be just magically disappearing somewhere to no big effect.
So nobody will answer why the Bush Administration explicitly acknowledged that anthropogenic global warming is occurring?
Is George W. Bush part of the leftist socialist atheist Gore-loving conspiracy as well?
HOW DEEP DOES THE CONSPIRACY GO?
For the dimwits:
Scientific Evidence
Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth’s history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.
Figure 1. CO2 and Temperature. Barnola et al, 2003; Jouzel/Petit et al; Keeling et al; Neftel/Friedli et al. Data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Select image for larger version – 116KB. Opens in a new window.)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Noting these trends, and recognizing the potential for dramatic changes in the climate due to continued unchecked accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The purpose of the IPCC was to objectively review existing and developing peer-reviewed scientific literature to form an objective evaluation about the risk of human-induced climate change.
After years of investigation and in consultation with thousands of scientists, the IPCC was able to write, in its Second Assessment Report in 1995, that climate has changed over the past century and that the twentieth century had a mean temperature “at least as warm as any other century since 1400 A.D.” Their report noted that the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over the past 150 years (from about 280 parts per million to about 376 parts per million) is largely due to anthropogenic (human-caused) effects and concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Their models predicted a rise of 1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit in the global mean surface temperature during the next century, with sea-levels expected to rise by 6 inches to 3 feet by 2100. (IPCC 1995). The conclusions of the IPCC gained broad support in the world scientific community and, in the summer of 1997, a letter signed by 2,600 scientists called for the United States to take a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the likelihood of intense, continuous global warming.
Improved Models, Growing Confidence
The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC was released in 2001, incorporating new research undertaken in the five years since the Second Assessment Report. Increased confidence in evolving modeling techniques lent added weight to the linkage between rising temperatures and continued greenhouse accumulations.
Using Computer Models to Predict Influences on Climate
Fig. 2. Comparison of observed temperature anomalies and modeled anomalies predicted under varying “forcing” scenarios. Source: IPCC, Third Assesment Report, Climate Change 2001.
For example, recorded global temperature change can be compared with computer models that predict temperature change under different “forcing” scenarios, (with “forcings” signifying external influences on the solar radiative budget of the planet – greenhouse gases, aerosols, increased solar radiation, and other agents). Fig. 2 above compares observed temperature anomalies from the historic mean (red line) with the results of computer models that attempt to predict temperature based on the interactions of other environmental influences (gray line).
The top two charts in the figure illustrate that models using natural and anthropogenic influences alone [(a) Natural Forcing Only & (b) Anthropogenic Forcing Only] fail to match the observed record of temperature anomalies since 1866. But the combination of natural and anthropogenic models [(c) Natural + Anthropogenic Forcing] produces a close match to the measured data. This is seen as a clear “thumbprint” of human impacts on climate change.
Based on results such as these, the IPCC’s 2001 report stated emphatically that “concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities.” Revised models for the future predict even higher anticipated temperature increases than did the First Assessment Report (2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 under different likely scenarios), while estimates for sea-level rise, though significant, decreased slightly with refinements to the models used.
Accumulating Evidence
Other evidence of the reality of global warming continues to accumulate. Consistent with predictions of the IPCC since 1990, global average temperatures have indeed been rising while atmospheric CO2 increases at a rate of approximately 1.6ppm per year (Fig. 3, below).
Figure 3. Global Temperature & CO2 Concentration Since 1880. Data from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) & Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (Select image for larger version – 109KB. Opens in a new window.)
The ten hottest years in the period of instrumental data (since 1861) have all occurred since 1989. The warmest year was 1998, followed by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 & 1999 (tied) and 1991 & 2000 (tied) (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia), and it is now generally recognized that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record (Fig. 4, below).
Figure 4. Global Temperature Anomalies (deviation from the 1880 – 2004 mean). Data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC). (Select image for larger version – 60KB. Opens in a new window.)
The global monthly temperature record for each month of the year over the history of instrumented data has occurred since 1997 (Fig. 5, below).
Figure 5. All record global monthly temperatures have occurred since 1997. Data from University of East Anglia, Climatic Research Unit. (Select image for larger version – 74KB. Opens in a new window.)
Other global events are suggestive of climatic changes that are likely to become more prevalent under a changing global climate regime. Glaciers are present on every continent other than Australia and function as reasonably well-distributed indicators of changing global temperatures. Worldwide, glaciers and icefields have been shrinking and receding for at least the last century. The collapse of the 1250 square mile Antarctic Larsen B ice shelf in 2002 was just one of the more spectacular instances of a phenomenon that is likely to become more frequent in a warmer world. Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is an event long predicted by climate scientists as an indication of a warming atmosphere (Gelbspan 1997).
The northern Arctic region appears to be even more vulnerable than the Antarctic (which may actually see increases to its ice sheet due to increased precipitation under a changing climate regime) and in a 2004 report by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), (Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), the list of Arctic change due to warming includes such phenomena as decreases in sea ice, increasing precipitation and river discharge, thawing of glaciers and permafrost, and changes in plant and animal abundances and distributions.
While it is impossible to establish a direct causal link between greenhouse gas accumulation and individual, relatively short-term climatic events, it is certain that we have been experiencing increasing numbers of climatic events unprecedented in the human experience. It is also certain that many of the greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, have lengthy residence times in the atmosphere and that we will continue to be affected for years or even centuries to come by the atmospheric burden we are creating today.
Why anyone listens to the environmental extremist community on any subject is beyond me. The American left has a long history of making outlandish predictions regarding climate change. Here are a few predictions made at the original earth day celebration.
1) 75 to 85% of all species of living animals will be extinct by the year 2000.
2)The world will be 11 degrees cooler by the year 2000.
3)It is to late to avoid mass starvation, and the average age of death will be 41 in the year 2000.
4)By the year 2000 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million.
Environmental alarmism, whether it be cooling or warming has been going on my entire adult life. And everytime they are proven wrong. “Never mind”.
The people who believe this guy are the same ones who do not believe in evolution.
The Shadow has indeed provided information for dimwits. His post is laced with outdated, partial, and literally faked information, so dimwits will love it.
A point-by-point response would be both useless (we are dealing with a cult, not a rational population) and burdensome. So, for the benefit of the perceptive and fair-minded — I don’t have anything to say to dimwits — I’ll debunk just one assertion in The Shadow’s remarks. Note, please, that the targeted error is fundamental and critical to the entire AGW case. Understand it, and the rest will follow naturally; you can dismiss the terrorizing mythology of AGW and breathe free.
The Shadow says:
“Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth’s history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years.”
This is all true.
What The Shadow does not tell you is that the ice cores clearly show that rises in CO2 do not precede rises in temperature, and falling temperatures are not preceded by falling CO2 levels. Further, the gap between the two lines on the graph can be as much as 800 years.
That means The Shadow is trying to slip past you a tacit claim that a cause can come after its effect.
He may not know the true sequence of events, of course, but that seems unlikely. In any event, he’s wrong, whether he’s ethically culpable or not.
There are many instances in the geological record of rising CO2 levels being unable to sustain high temperatures, and sharply falling CO2 levels can be seen while temperatures were rising steeply.
There is a cause-effect relationship, and it’s amply demonstrated by the data. But it’s exactly the opposite of what The Shadow implies (he leaves it to you to assume that CO2 levels lead, and therefore drive, temperature levels). In fact CO2 lags temperature.
This is the sort of deceit found in Al Gore’s film. He takes the facts just so far, and then ignores the full story. Gore also has a number of tall tales to tell in that film, among them that there is an island or islands in the South Seas that had to be evacuated because of the rising sea level. The displaced islanders were said to be in New Zealand. When a British court asked for evidence of this event, nothing was located to back up the empty claim.
Rising sea levels? Have a look at this.
The claimed behavior of climate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a similar myth. That’s the hockey stick graph, and yes, it is a hoax, a thoroughly debunked fabrication.
Again: here’s the
full story.
Read it. It crushes the AGW cult’s favorite propaganda… absolutely destroys the case for one of Gore’s most effective exhibits. Al used to terrify people with that graph, and now he’s forgotten all about it. The rascal.
People like Gore and Jim Hansen at NASA are not just peddling terrorizing fables, they are also ignoring the truth. For example, Hansen never tells you that of all the CO2 in the atmosphere today, something around 3 to 5 percent of it is produced by all human activity; yet he wants to cut the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 9 percent. That’s impossible. Not just difficult — flat impossible.
And Hansen wants to pull off this miracle in a matter of months, not decades. He actually expects people to believe him! Hey, he’s from NASA!
All the convenient lies about CO2 have been so totally debunked that the mention of CO2 in current AGW propaganda has fallen by the wayside. It had to: too many people have learned that CO2 levels do not drive cooling and warming, but that cooling and warming drive CO2 levels.
We have rebranding, as well. AGW cultists no longer call it “global warming.” It’s “climate change” now, and they usually don’t say “human caused,” either.
Gore’s sermon has changed as he drops old claims, and he now raves about pollution and the urgency of the matter.
AGW is a hasty conclusion based on inaccurate assumptions, myths, and inaccurate data. The gullible faithful are spreading disinformation, sometimes knowingly. Like The Shadow, they expect the public to take partial information (ice core data), add their own false assumptions (the sequence of events that defines cause and effect) and become alarmed by an impending but imaginary catastrophe.
You have two defenses against the assault of junk science and alarmist propaganda: your reason, and access to information.
So what did George W. Bush have to gain by having his administration release a report that says AGW is occurring now and we should do something about it?
Was he part of the environmental extremist cult too?
Hey trolls. Why does it matter? You’re going to be dead from the war caused by the depression caused by cap’n tax long before global warming even gets its socks on.
Bush is irrelevant.
The EPA is claiming we are in danger from CO2. This fuels the Congress to make bad law. We struggle against this: the cost of just about everything will go up if Waxman-Markey becomes law. I can’t afford it.
Proving that increased GHG will lead to great danger is impossible. Proving that costly legislation will relieve us from great danger is impossible. Proving that rising CO2 levels cause global warming is impossible. Proving that the EPA ignores current data that disputes AGW is possible. What else do you need to know?
Cap-and-Trade must be fought tooth and nail. Our representative government is not supposed to harm us, and that is what Waxman-Markey will do.
Stand up and fight this…the evidence is on our side!
With reference to the move from global warming to climate change to describe the same ‘thing’ . Here in Australia we can top that! We have moved to a third catastrophic trope – “carbon pollution”. Three different problems with the one magic solution. Can you beat that?
The environmental extremist cult has hoodwinked a lot of people, including folks who simply don’t have the time to look into the matter and inform themselves. Politicians are high on that list.
Bush probably had to make a purely political decision: allow the AGW claims to be released, or prevent the report from coming out. Put yourself in his position, and then imagine that you, the president, were approached by a few senior level civil servants and told that there is evidence of mobile phones causing cancer and promoting Alzheimer’s in users. Do you express concern and allow publication, do you research the question yourself in considerable detail to determine the quality of the report, or do you say, “We can’t let that get out”?
Be realistic.
There are fads in science. Marshall and Warren tried for years to get physicians to look at their evidence, and failed for much of that time. Eventually they got the Nobel in medicine for their work, but, like Pasteur and Lister and Jenner and Fleming, they were ignored or just considered crackpots for far too long. Check it out.
So how do you spot a crackpot, or a lousy fad in science? It is not easy, but you look for alarmist predictions (especially those that give dates for approaching catastrophes), draw on current crackpot themes (“we are all guilty of sinning against Gaia”), involve sweeping political solutions to global difficulties, reek of Utopian thinking, and tend to preach rather than inform.
Ehrlich’s proof of approaching famine is a good example, and no, you don’t have to think evolution is bunk in order to believe that this guy wrote a book predicting global starvation before the end of the 20th century. (Sheesh!) He had all the facts, lots of charts and neat scientific stuff, and proved his case conclusively. Why this overeducated, bombastic false prophet has not retired in disgrace to a hut in the Himalayas baffles me.
IMHO politicians like Waxman, Boxer, Lieberman and Obama are just covering their butts when they lend credibility to the myth of AGW. (That’s the most flattering thing I can think of to say about these bozos.) They don’t understand the issues, but they can’t admit that, so they err on what they think is the side of caution when highly-visible frauds like Jim Hansen (ooooh, NASA!) tell them the sky is falling, and they darn sure better do something about it.
As we can see from this thread, if you try to tell the AGW cult that they are out to lunch, their data are incorrect, and their misinterpretation of what they have leads to absurd conclusions — you get hammered, and how. What politician wants to risk that?
So they try to find the safe way out. Yes, it’s ignorance, and yes, it’s cowardice. But few of these guys have the time and desire to vet the AGW case thoroughly enough to see what it is. Then how many of those who do have the interest and time also have the guts to stand up and say, “Look, everybody, this is junk science! Debate me, Gore, I dare you!”
For many if not all Democrats, that’s out of the question.
As for the GOP, well, who in that party has the integrity and courage literally to invite vicious attack? “Who, me, make a target of myself, when there is absolutely no benefit to my career?” The mess we are in provides the answer. The milktoast GOP can’t even stand up to Barney Frank, for crying out loud.
benson’s falsehoods…
#1 “fundamental and critical”
#2 “terrorizing mythology”
#3 “unable to sustain”
#4 “exactly the opposite”
#5 “CO2 lags temperature”
#6 “behavior of climate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a similar myth.”
#7 “That’s the hockey stick graph”
#8 “a hoax”
#9 “around 3 to 5 percent”
#10 “That’s impossible”
#11 “in a matter of months”
#12 “has fallen by the wayside”
#13 “they were ignored or just considered crackpots”
Bush probably had to make a purely political decision: allow the AGW claims to be released, or prevent the report from coming out. Put yourself in his position, and then imagine that you, the president, were approached by a few senior level civil servants and told that there is evidence of mobile phones causing cancer and promoting Alzheimer’s in users. Do you express concern and allow publication, do you research the question yourself in considerable detail to determine the quality of the report, or do you say, “We can’t let that get out”?
Doesn’t sound like the non-poll-driven, stalwart Commander in Chief who kept us safe from terrorists for seven years. Are we talking about the same George W. Bush?
“sharply falling CO2 levels can be seen while temperatures were rising steeply.”
“In fact CO2 lags temperature.”
Did you not even notice that you contradicted yourself?
Oh Lord, give me the strength to not clobber Boris over the head with a Fourier transform that would just go in one ear and out the other…
“fourier transform”
because we just love non sequitur attempts to impress and confuse…
Not to mention mixed metaphors…
#91 Lazar
Why don’t you READ Plimer’s book, rather than recycle the random stuff you have dredged up on the net? Michael Ashley’s hatchet-job on Plimer’s book in “the Australian” is full of misrepresentations, ad hominem attacks and hypocrisy.
He, and you apparently, saw no irony in solemnly chiding Plimer, more in bogus sorrow than in anger, for trashing the hard work of serious science types, and then, in the next paragraph, comparing Plimer to Erich von Daniken – a fraudster and criminal.
I have never felt that this global warming or climate change was for real. I am glad to see some evidence that it is about to be exposed as the farce that it is. Hopefully it can be used as ammunition to block or stop the “Cap and Trade” upcoming bill. I certainly hope that this will be the case and the sooner it (global warming) vanishes the better.
“misrepresentations”
examples…?
plimer’s book is not…
“hard work of serious science”
“Perhaps you haven’t noticed that there is no science involved in the arguments against AGW theory.”
What an utterly ignorant statement. That’s the kind of statement that makes me doubt you’ve ever actually engaged AGW skepticism with an open mind, or bothered to question the AGW conventional wisdom.
“Which presidential administration issued an official report that included, in its Executive Summary, the following statement?”
What part of “science is not a matter of politics” don’t you understand?
I don’t care who was in the Oval Office when a pack of government bureaucrats pushed an argument for giving them more power; it doesn’t make their argument any more scientifically sound.
“Did you not even notice that you contradicted yourself?”
There’s no contradiction between those two statements:
“sharply falling CO2 levels can be seen while temperatures were rising steeply.”
“In fact CO2 lags temperature.”
I don’t care who was in the Oval Office when a pack of government bureaucrats pushed an argument for giving them more power; it doesn’t make their argument any more scientifically sound.
Or any less sound. But the fact that the Bush Administration finally conceded that AGW is real and occurring, after years of denial, is meaningful.
And you’re right – science isn’t about politics. AGW should be a non-partisan issue. But one group insists on burying their heads in the sand.
“But one group insists on burying their heads in the sand”
Correct, the AGW crowd wants it to be considered “settled science” and anyone who disagrees they attempt to bury their head in the sand so their opinion, or studies can’t be heard read and discussed.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time. Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke
My statement that CO2 “lags” temperature has been misunderstood, so here’s the definition of the troublesome term: “lags” means “comes later in time.”
First the temperature moves, and then, after a time lag, CO2 responds and moves in the same direction. Effect follows, or “lags,” cause. Cause cannot lag effect.
This speaks to the error The Shadow promulgated. He wants us to assume that CO2 moves first, with temperature then changing in response. That’s what AGW believers think, and they have it exactly backwards.
To determine whether The Shadow is right when he claims CO2 levels affect temperature, we ask whether there was a period when rising CO2 in the air coincided with falling temperatures. We try to disprove the hypothesis, in other words.
Such events — CO2 going up, with temps dropping — are demonstrated by evidence from the ice cores, and they are common. There were also many periods in geologic time when falling levels of CO2 coincided with rising temperatures. If CO2 caused warming, those phenomena would not exist. Could not exist. But they do.
How to understand this?
The mechanism is the trapping of CO2 by the oceans. As the oceans are warmed (necessarily slowly!) by a hotter atmosphere, they give up more of the dissolved CO2 they contain. When temperatures fall, eventually the oceans cool, and because cooler water can contain more CO2 than can warmer water, CO2 levels in the air decline. The gas literally goes into the oceans.
This process takes a long time, so higher temperatures cause higher CO2 levels only eventually. It can take 600 to 800 years before CO2 and temperature are moving in the same direction. And then, cooling may set in just when CO2 has started rising; that gives you a period when CO2 continues to climb and the planet is cooling off.
That’s how a lag causes exactly opposite movement of temperature and CO2 levels simultaneously.
To repeat in the hope of being understood: the most important fact we know from looking at the data is that we don’t have repeated sequences in which CO2 goes up, and then temperatures go up — or instances of CO2 going down, followed by falling temperatures.
The sequence of the events is all-important: temperature first, then CO2. It’s this that Gore concealed from his audience in his error-laden film.
Those “closely related” lines depicting temperature and CO2 on Gore’s graph ARE closely related, but they do not overlap — and, most damning of all, when you examine them closely, you see that pattern: first temperature goes up, and then CO2 goes up (“CO2 LAGS temperature”).
There you have it: the solid evidence proving that CO2 levels do not cause either warming or cooling.
Whatever does cause warming/cooling (how about the sun?), it is not CO2. CO2 responds to warming/cooling. And: extreme warming/cooling cycles have been present since the earth was formed.
I did not mean to be obtuse, and no, I did not contradict myself.
I’ve gone into all this repetitious detail because this, as I said (using different words) in my comment, 129, is THE crucial point. Once you see that CO2 is not a cause of climate change, the whole AGW myth falls apart.
Now someone may produce a perfectly correct graph showing that if you have very, very low levels of atmospheric CO2 and you introduce some of that gas into the air, warming will occur. True. Am I refuted? The graph demonstrates that the more CO2 you add, the less its effect; in a hurry, additional CO2 has a literally infinitesimal impact on temperature. That’s where we are today: plenty of CO2 in the air, and a lot more can’t drive temperature up nearly enough to cause the dread AGW catastrophe. In fact we probably won’t be able to measure the rise, which means we won’t be sure CO2 continues to have any warming effect at all in relatively higher atmospheric concentrations.
So yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s also a wimp in that department, far less significant than water (imagine: every time it rains, we diminish global warming, heh), because it functions as a greehhouse gas only under very limited conditions that do not obtain today. Its effects are not linear, but fall off precipitously as concentrations of the gas rise, with the marginal effect rapidly becoming negligible. CO2 can’t trigger runaway warming by heating things so the tundra melts and releases methane and we all die.
How much nasty, human-caused CO2 is there, by the way? Less than 2% of the atmosphere is NOT nitrogen and oxygen, so that leaves over 1% for hydrogen, water vapor, a few odd gases, and CO2. Of the CO2 in the atmosphere — and yes, this is true, though it be denied (look it up), maybe 5% is man-caused (I looked it up, 5% was agreed on by AGW types and their opponents, and some authorities say 3%). At most, humans have contributed CO2 totaling less than two one-thousandths of one percent of the earth’s atmosphere. That would be bad, if that tiny percentage were carbon monoxide, but….
One other point, unrelated to cause – effect, temperature – CO2: the hockey stick graph is a way of representing visually the effect of the Industrial Revolution on climate. That was the point of it. It was worked and re-worked and hammered until it was dramatic and scientific-looking, and Gore got great traction with it. It is in fact a proven hoax. We know who did it, and how he fiddled the data. See the website. Read the proof.
Finally, I don’t know George W. Bush’s reason for allowing that report to be published, so I should not have speculated about that event. My mistake. To me, this is a literally irrelevant and immaterial issue. I don’t think the facts regarding temperature and CO2 have anything to do with why the White House released any report. Shoot, I’m not even sure facts have consistently mattered to any administration for many decades….
#141 Lazar on Plimer and Ashley:
“misrepresentations”
examples…?”
Yes, I’ll give you an example. Ashley says that Plimer claims that because CO2 levels inside a house are so variable, then this discredits scientific measuring of CO2 levels at a place like Mauna Loa. Plimer said no such thing. This mistake is then airily used to discredit the entire book:
“Incredible as it may seem, this quality of argument is typical of the book”.
And how would he know? There is obviously the input of other, like minded, folk into that breathtaking assertion.
Like I said, READ Plimer’s book.
“READ Plimer’s book”
he’s put enough material online (here, here) to show that he is an ignorant and arrogant fool…
you’re expecting people to spend time and money on pseudo-science…
lefroy, read something other than plimer’s book…
I got a better idea. Forget the science and scientists. We’re not getting anywhere with them. Let’s let the wise Latina decide. That’ll at least shut Naverrette up. Or maybe not.
Or we can settle it the old-fashioned way. I’d like to see Gore try to call Buzz Aldrin a “denier” to his face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU
quantifying plimer’s ignorance and arrogance…
#1 “our global warming catastrophists have never explained why carbon dioxide is increasing,”
#2 “they say it’s industrialization but it equally well could be the medieval warm period”
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel use, 1751–1950
R.J. Andres et al. 1999
Tellus B vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 759-765
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-3-00002.
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels: a procedure for estimation and results for 1950-1982
G. Marland and R.M. Rotty 1984
Tellus B vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 232-261
CO2 from fossil fuel burning: a comparison of ORNL and EDGAR estimates of national emissions
G. Marland, Brenkert, A., and J. Olivier 1999
Environmental Science & Policy vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 265-273
doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(99)00018-0
Estimates of Global, Regional, and National Annual CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Hydraulic Cement Production, and Gas Flaring: 1950-1992
T.A. Boden, Marland, G., and R.J. Andres 1995
ORNL/CDIAC-90, NDP-030/R6
Evidence for preindustrial variations in the marine surface water carbonate system from coralline sponges
F. Bohm et al. 2002
Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems vol. 3, pp. 1019
doi: 10.1029/2001GC000264
Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2: Carbon-13 Evidence
P.D. Quay, Tilbrook, B., and C.S. Wong 1994
Science vol. 256, no. 5053, pp. 74-79
doi: 10.1126/science.256.5053.74
Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research
P. Ghosh and W.A. Brand 2003
International Journal of Mass Spectrometry vol. 228, no. 1, pp. 1-33
doi: 10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6
A 1000-year high precision record of δ13C in atmospheric CO2
R.J. Francey et al. 1998
Tellus B vol. 51 no. 2, pp. 170-193
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00005.x
Seasonal, latitudinal, and secular variations in the abundance and isotopic ratios of atmospheric carbon dioxide. I – Results from land stations
W.G. Mook et al. 1983
Journal of Geophysical Research vol. 88, pp. 10915-10933
doi: 10.1029/JC088iC15p10915
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Reservoir Changes
M. Stuiver 1978
Science vol. 199, no. 4326, pp. 253-258
doi: 10.1126/science.199.4326.253
A Large Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the 13C/12C Ratio of Atmospheric CO2
P. Ciais et al. 1995
Science vol. 269. no. 5227, pp. 1098-1102
doi: 10.1126/science.269.5227.1098
data available online at cdiac
plimer ignorantly and arrogantly casts modern infrared measurements of atmospheric co2 as unreliable on the basis of the presence of errors… this is typical fud… fear, uncertainty, doubt… all scientific measurements are influenced by errors… the relevant issues are how large the errors are. and how well they have been quantified and possibly removed… issues which are dealt with amply in the scientific literature… the errors are independent so you can do a rough check of the accuracy and precision by comparing measurements from eleven different locations spanning the globe… plimer then promotes old, wet chemical methods of co2 measurement from contaminated locations as “precise” and “validated”… these were abandoned in the 1950s because they were too inaccurate to obtain an estimate of the background concentration… what a fool… plimer is a self publicist… not a scientist on this issue… and ‘his’ ‘work’ is the unoriginal recycling of tired old discredited argumentation… in this case it was E.G. Becks’s…
“Of the CO2 in the atmosphere — and yes, this is true, though it be denied (look it up), maybe 5% is man-caused (I looked it up, 5% was agreed on by AGW types and their opponents, and some authorities say 3%).”
Complete and utter BS. You are confusing the yearly contribution of CO2 to the total amount not absorbed by sinks.
And then you lie and say that 5% has been agreed upon.
And you don’t have a cite that CO2 is saturated do you? You know, an actual scientific publication, not somebody’s high school website?
And your lag argument shows that you are fairly poor at logic.
CO2 lags temperature – what does it mean?
“And you don’t have a cite that CO2 is saturated do you? You know, an actual scientific publication”
‘course he doesn’t… we know from line-by-line radiative transfer calculations that it isn’t… but pajamas media requires a higher standard of proof found in ‘some person said on a blog’ and quantitatively lacking pop pseudo-science books…
Lazar,
checked out your CDIAC site from which you have simply lifted a whole lot of learned looking papers and statistics about CO2. This seems to be a rather mendacious little government-affiliated site run by people who, though fully tithed members of the Church of Warming, disingenuously try to conceal it by concentrating on merely CO2 – but with arch little hints scattered throughout the site that global catastrophe is just around the corner.
I really liked this:
“Climate Variables Available in CDIAC Data Products:
* Temperature
* Precipitation
* Cloudiness
* Sunshine Duration
* Snowfall and Snow Depth
* Atmospheric Pressure
* Atmospheric Moisture
* Surface Winds
* Weather Types
* Climate Reconstructions (from Paleo Climate Proxies)
* Climate Indices”
Um . . . solar magnetic activity? . . hello?
“you have simply lifted”
no dear…
“a whole lot of learned looking papers and statistics about CO2″
oh the horror of measurements, quantification, analysis, statistical testing… if i’d shown you an uninformed error-strewn pseudo-science book that lies about climate science i suppose you’d have been happy…
“mendacious little government-affiliated site run by people who, though fully tithed members of the Church of Warming”
didn’t have to wait long for you to blather… i guessed you would try to distract from plimer’s ignorance… keep repeating that mantra…
rest sent to the bit bin in the sky
“dear” . . ? Where does that come from?
It’s funny how the horrible prospect of AGW not being true causes you (and so many other believers) such palpable anxiety. You all have so much hairtrigger hostility when AGW is challenged.
It’s a security blanket for you, isn’t it?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
I suppose this is junk science too?
“the horrible prospect of AGW”
you got that right
“hostility”
not at all… more a kind of weary amusement
“I suppose this is junk science too?”
helps to read the paper… the correlations are established between *detrended* anomalies… the 72% and 68% figures are how the soi explains the *residual* variance and not the warming *trend*… as can clearly be seen in the plots…
the paper is not junk… but it’s nothing new… relationships between the soi and detrended anomalies have been known for donkeys years…