268 Comments

1. African Moondog:

My favorite was the comment made by scientists regarding the siting of an ice berg off the South African coast. “This is a further indication of global warming”. To my mind it was the exact opposite.

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:27 am 2. Marc Malone:

Lysenko-ism redux. Environmentalism is also a religion. The sudden, forceful spread of new religions lead to technological dark ages, because the pols get put in charge. Dogma trumps reason. (It’s funny how those on the far-left ridicule religion, but adhere to environmentalism with religious fervor.)

Christianity spread, often by force. Much info was lost. Islam spread by force. Technology wasn’t lost, so much as stagnated. Communism is a religion. Technology was stifled. Communists steal technology, because they can’t develop it readily. So it goes.

Jan 30, 2009 - 2:12 am 3. Eric R.:

The problem isn’t so much science, it’s a world political, media & academic system dominated by Communists who make scientists cower for survival.

There’s plenty of evidence out there that global warming is phony. It just doesn’t get reported by our far-left global media.

Jan 30, 2009 - 2:30 am 4. syn:

“The credibility of science may never recover.”

So true. While all the Darwinists were going ape-sh*t crazy over Creationist potentially ‘ruining science’ the Climate Changers beat them all to the punchline.

I don’t care how smart or how many degrees one has, the fact remains science is no longer rational nor logical and as a result of this mindless scam ‘the credibility of science will never recover’.

Jan 30, 2009 - 2:48 am 5. canuck:

AGW has left the realm of science and entered cult (religion) status. Even the MSM has been unsuccessful at selling this fraud.

If anyone is to be tried, drawn and quartered it needs to be the two most prominent fraudsters: Al Gore and Hansen. After the demonstration of data manipulation he should just be eliminated from all future discussion until after his presentations have been peer reviewed by real climatologists. Data review also ensure that the results are measuring the same data on both sides of the equation…such as including the 60 Soviet met stations shut down just before the data for the famous hockey stick fraud was collated.

What can you say about Gore? If a guy was so stupid to flunk out of divinity school his only chance in life was to start his own religion. He has certainly done so and like the other passing religions like some evangelists he is making tons of bucks off his fraud. He just hasn’t been caught in a hotel with a hooker yet or hauled up by the Altar Boys Union.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:04 am 6. weSwinger:

“Richard Feynman said that the physics we know is the simple part; natural physics in the real world is far too simple”…
Please correct: far too complex.

Otherwise, good to see you here from your usual haunt at American Thinker. Always top notch work.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:06 am 7. Bob Campbell:

This is a really good article.. well thought out, well articulated.. thanks, I enjoy reading the article.. of course, I totally agree with you.. AGW is a scam. Al Gore is a lunatic..

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:13 am 8. Jonas:

Thanks for a very good written article

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:34 am 9. robert verdi:

time and work are needed. the true believers will never give in though.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:38 am 10. T. J. Babson:

I think “fraud” is the wrong word. Most of the sins described by Lewis were committed by true believers rather than scam artists.

Most scientists are skeptical regarding our ability to predict the earth’s climate. Most also believe that this is an experiment that shouldn’t be tried.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:00 am 11. vb:

In my experience, nothing excites good scientists more than not getting the expected results from an experiment. That only means there is a whole new world of wonders to explore. Only the dullards want to shut down discussion.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:01 am 12. eon:

The methodology used to “prove” the existence of AGW is remarkably like that used to “prove” the existence of UFOs (defined as non-terrestrial vehicles). Hypotheses are repeatedly presented as proven and irrefutable fact, based on at best fragmentary evidence. Methodologies used for “research” are imprecise, and vulnerable to falsification. The advocates are themselves “believers”, who start with their “theory” and look for evidence to support it- ignoring any evidence to the contrary. And anyone, especially an expert in an applicable field, who points out the inconsistencies in the evidence and/or conclusions is vilified as part of a vast world-wide conspiracy against “the truth”.

The objectives of both campaigns are similar as well. The UFO contactees of the 1950s, frightened by the specter of nuclear war, confabulated technological “angels” who demanded that we abolish technology and live in a pastoral one-world state at Bronze Age levels under the “benevolent” rule of a chosen elite’- the contactees. Sound familiar? And like the AGW crowd today, the “enlightened ones” claimed that the “truth” was on their side- and woe to anyone who questioned it.

Science is about facts. If you’re looking for truth, consider a career in theology. And just as you will find neither one in the books of those who have hob-nobbed with blonde-headed Venusians, so you will find neither one in the fulminations of the AGW Chicken Littles- who under their feathers, are looking more and more like wolves every day.

clear ether

eon

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:08 am 13. saddened:

As frauds go, AGW is the village-idiot-come-lately.
The long, poor tradition of Socialism, with its string of train wrecks in its historical wake, seems far greater.
Yet the collective ‘we’ snorts that coke, too.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:21 am 14. Bugler:

“natural physics in the real world is far too simple for blind generalization.”

Obviously the author means “complex” rather than “simple” here.

That said, this is an excellent piece.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:26 am 15. don L:

Fog -condensation in London is cause by warm North Atlantic Drift waters reacting to those cold Artic waters meeting each other. But I thought the Arctic waters were getting warmer –which would, if my sixlrth grade science experiment was correct, cause less condensation -fog!

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:49 am 16. thomas:

What truly amazes me is how common sense, if such a thing could be said to exist, has taken a powder. If I look out my window, here in Northern Ontario, I should be and am a hard sell on a warming trend. Yet, I have friends who accept it, religiously, and get quite upset when I don’t go along. Every usual or unusual event seems to prove AGW. Really hot? Really cold? Very dry? Unusually wet? Just right? Everything is proof of global warming. As for us dirty rotten skeptics, maybe some day we’ll get to say, “See!”

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:49 am 17. wildman:

lets see, agw is based on observations of venus applied to earth. venus is the most volcanic planet in the solar system. Its atmosphere is 90 time the density of earth’s. its 41 million kilometers closer to the sun. it is covered by a perpetual cloud cover of sulfuric acid. so, how do the observations of venus remotely translate into effects on earth? when the earth was young, the entire atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide. based on the premise being put forth by the gorebots that a parts per million increase will destroy the planet, life should should have never evolved here and the planet should be a burned out cinder based on the fact the atmosphere was once all carbon dioxide.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:01 am 18. Paul -Indiana:

When the global warming people can use their computer models to sucessfully predict 1990s weather based on 1950s data I will listen to them. Until then, they can go bother someone else.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:17 am 19. Derek:

“Don’t even use it unless you are prepared to prove that C02 and methane actually raise world temperatures.”

Let me guess, your scientific discipline doesn’t involve practical knowledge of chemical physics. Even on a basic common sense level we know the greenhouse effect exists. I mean otherwise there is no explanation for why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury receives more solar radiation. Or why the average nighttime temperature on Mercury is -330 degrees. And that’s just the common sense side. The scientific kicker would be that we know the absorption bands of particular gases and we know that Solar radiation falls right into some of those bands. So we know that gases like CO2 and CH4 absorb solar radiation.

There is a reason scientists don’t comment on other fields and you’re showing just why. Especially scientists that try to butt into scientific disciplines that are WAY MORE rigorous than theirs.

I mean, this is amusing because the only real way to accept that AGW is illogical is to dispute basic physics. Or dispute methodologies used to gather temperature, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD TO EVEN KNOW WHY YOU ARE DISPUTING IT. Your conclusion is “i don’t trust it.” Seriously? You HAVE to be a biologist, no other scientific discipline is that ridiculous.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:25 am 20. Craig:

“Al Gore is a sick joke.”

My sentiments EXACTLY. Succinctly said- thank you.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:26 am 21. Sara for America:

The question is: How do you stop prophecy?

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:27 am 22. Dana.P , SF:

All you whiny neo-cons get a grip. Al Gore has won an Oscar and Nobel because of his brave and very intelligent endeavor to crush American waste, greed and prosperity. So what if tens of millions have to be laid off and possibly starve to save the earth. If we listened to Mr Gore and the scientists who have proven without doubt that AGW is the problem we wouldn’t have only 4years of life left on earth!!! Mr Gore is trying to save us all, the least you can do is listen to the sacrifices he and Obama are demanding we all take. If becoming a socialist nation means we can save polar bears, reduce erosion, and our carbon footprint etc, so be it. I’m more than willing to sacrifice, I’ll live off a bowl of rice a day/week like Cubans do if I have to. If I have to freeze a little also then I’ll do it to stop GW.. for the environment for all of us.

There are exotic tree ants in Peru that will no longer exists soon because of us!!!! Shame on all of us!! Can’t you right wing nutjobs see that Mr Gore cares so much that he wants to save even ants!!! Bush-Haliburton Zionists have caused so much damage it isn’t funny, Wall street needs to be punished too! Impeach Bush and Cheney today!! For the sake of exotic ants and moths and species everywhere Obama must not help Israel ever!!

All you skeptics are wrong just like 9/11 which Bush and Jews organized, Mr Gore is right!! I hope Obama also makes sure that an inconvenient truth is mandatory reading in all schools, I would add also Mr Obama’s own books too.
Look at all Hollywood stars who understand about the environment and who want to know more about places like Cuba and Venezuela where carbon footprints are so low everyone is happy and have better education and more freedom. Why I support Obama, he is so awesome I know he will save the whole world, I can’t be wrong because MSNBC, NBC and NYT all agree with that too! FoxNews has made all you neocons stoooooooooooopid!

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:35 am 23. Ann141:

The “scientist-politicians” are as same as the “Hollywood entertainment-politicians.

They are completely outside of their knowledge base, but have the PR skills to play off a power base that has developed under their feet because of the desire on the part of the “real politicians” to manipulate public opinion and somehow gain public fiat.

Algore is the mutated politician-scientist that has provided the genetic link for this monstrosity to develop and thrive.

The old saw, “Follow the money” or “It’s about the money” should probably be adapted to include the concept of power. In Algore’s case, it’s as much about the power as it is about the money.

All of this has just been his substitute presidency.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:40 am 24. e:

One of the excuses that everything is a sign of Global Warming is Global Weirding. That is AGW causes more unusual weather which masks a warming trend.

The problem with the Weirding theory is that current temperatures and weather is completely unremarkable compared to even the last 50 years.

So we really have AGW but you just can’t see it!! Well ain’t that a terrible theory.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:48 am 25. JFP:

So, what will the true believers do when it is generally acknowledged that AGW is wrong? Will they move on to some new “threat?” Will they choose a scapegoat (James Hansen seems the likely choice)? Or will they apologize? Ha, ha, ha, just kidding on that last one. We know that won’t happen.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:57 am 26. ThinkingPerson:

Dana P in SF apparently is doing a little tree-sitting somewhere and hasn’t gotten the message that the scientific world is coming out against global warming. Gee Dana did you even know that a growing number of scientists that Gore highlighted in his movie have come out to say he misrepresented them? Guess you don’t get good reception up there in your tree? Loosen up that hemp bandanna and go back into society a bit. It would serve you well before you open up your uninformed claptrap once again and embarrass your fellow liberals beyond redemption.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:13 am 27. Vinny Vidivici:

AGW is just the latest ruse by those who produce nothing to get control over those who do.

Even if AGW existed, the very last people I’d want on the job are members of our parasitic political class, barely literate ‘journalists’, day-dreaming university professors, rent-seeking scientists, earnest do-gooders and control freaks — all of whom think they know what’s best for the rest of us.

A list, please, of inventions, diseases cured, nations raised from poverty and wars ended (except through victory) by bureaucrats, trans-national talking shops and government agencies.

Give me two guys (or gals) in a garage with initiative and ideas. Of course, they’d probably conclude it was all a fraud, too.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:24 am 28. Phil K:

Perhaps a appropriate comparison can be drawn between AGW and alchemy.

If enough purported scientists believe it “Must” be possible (True) then it must. THe fact that Al Gore has managed to turn so much of AGW to “Gold” only strengthens the comparison.

Make you wonder…..

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:25 am 29. Peter the Bubblehead:

19. Derek wrote:
I mean otherwise there is no explanation for why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury receives more solar radiation. Or why the average nighttime temperature on Mercury is -330 degrees.

Peter writes: How about the fact Mercury has NO atmosphere! Like our own moon! That would explain it pretty well, wouldn’t it? Like the moon, there is nothing to keep the heat in and the surface of the planet simply boils on the day side and freezes on the night.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:29 am 30. Boris:

The very term “greenhouse gas” is an unproven assumption. Don’t even use it unless you are prepared to prove that C02 and methane actually raise world temperatures. So far the evidence doesn’t look good.

The IR absorbing properties of CO2 have been known since the 1800s. Are you seriously this ill informed?

Yet another jammie conspiracy theorist. No surprise here.

“There are no proven “greenhouse gases” in the real atmosphere”

Wow. Pure denial.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:29 am 31. Peter the Bubblehead:

25. JFP wrote:
So, what will the true believers do when it is generally acknowledged that AGW is wrong? Will they move on to some new “threat?”

Peter writes: Of course. Just like the “Ice Age Scare” of the 70’s turned into the “Global Warming Scare” of the 2000’s, it will morph into something else once there is enough ACCEPTED proof that these Goricle followers are plain nuts. Maybe they will say man is making the oceans too salty and the fish are all dying or man is making the ocean less salty and the fish are all dying or something like that?

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:38 am 32. Peter the Bubblehead:

26. ThinkingPerson wrote:
Dana P in SF apparently is doing a little tree-sitting somewhere and hasn’t gotten the message that the scientific world is coming out against global warming.

Peter writes: This is just a guess, ThinkingPerson, and Dana can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think his/her entire rant was sarcasm. Just a toot of the old irony-horn. At least that’s how I read it.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:40 am 33. Peter the Bubblehead:

I predict, someday soon, the Goricle will manage to pass his draconian regulations and within years the world will be free of the evil CO2. Then all the plants and trees will die off and the scientists will cry out, “Oh my God, we really needed CO2 for a healthy ecosphere! We were wrong! Forgive us!” And I will laugh and laugh… right before I keel over dead from the lack of oxygen the plants used to produce.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:44 am 34. Paul from Hamburg:

ThinkingPerson: I think you need to re-read Dana’s post.

Dana: Apparently, you are a little too good at what you do.

For the rest, I have this anecdote: Niagara Falls is not far from here. On the Canadian side, there is a area that is always wet because of the mist from the Falls. Not long ago, I was watching a TV show about Niagara Falls. They noted that in recent years, the mist seems to be more prevalent. To investigate this, researchers built a model of Canadian side of the Falls, including the various buildings. They showed that several large hotels which had been built in the past few years where blocking the prevailing west wind. The mist was being carried onto the shore instead of being blown back into the river. It was a very compelling demonstration.

Not long after that, I saw another TV show about Niagara Falls. That show also mentioned the increasing amount of mist. Without any explanation, they simply said: “This is a result of global warming”.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:45 am 35. Craig:

“…I can’t be wrong because MSNBC, NBC and NYT all agree with that too!”

Wow. Just wow.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:49 am 36. ThinkingPerson:

Dana…if that was sarcasm, my hat is off to you because we apparently share the same amount of vehemence for the GW hysteria. If not, I stand by my tree-sitting comment (although the hemp bandanna part might be a bit below the belt…).

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:54 am 37. Friendly Girl:

Wow, Boris the Genius has spoken, so you silly mortals have been blown out of the water!
Did you not know that Boris is the discoverer of the Islamic Gene? He is the man that proved that a religion is genetic.
He is currently working on the AGW gene no doubt.
Move over Gregor Mendel, Boris is here.
Remember that next time you stupid neo-cons dismiss Boris as an uneducated propaganda-fed socialist twit.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:57 am 38. Joe Bison:

Global warming is part of the leftist religion.
Droughts and other calamities brought the
need to sacrifice in earlier days. These
changes must have been caused by something we
did.
Luckily the leftists now only demand behavior
modification and cash to appease the situation
and not human sacrifice. The scammers in the
West find cash and power more useful.
The Goracle is aptly named for the fraudulent
oracles of old reading the future from animal
entrails. The high priest of a BS religion.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:04 am 39. BC:

Heysus S. Christie — right wingers really, REALLY should stay as far as possible from the topic of global warming: you open your mouth and every single demeaning cliche about the modern conservative Republican comes true, especially the bit about how you guys hate science.

Climate science is extremely complicated with many details still to be worked out, but one thing that is not at in doubt right now among the scientists involved in it is humankind’s role in the current round of warming. While the entire Earth itself is too huge for us to do much damage to it yet, the relatively almost vanishingly thin coating of air and water coating it is not.

Many things can cause things to warm up or cool down globally, more or less much the same way many things can, say, cause your car to be difficult to start in the morning. But just because you may have had an issue with a bad battery one time years back doesn’t exactly mean that has to be the reason again if a new problem occurs with starting your car up. And there’s no pointing in telling one reputable auto mechanic after another that they are wrong and/or being deceitful after each one checks things out and come to the same conclusion that you need a tuneup and new spark plugs.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:07 am 40. fear Obama:

I cant believe this hypocrisy!

Al Gore is a Nobel Pizza Prize winner and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

California fires have dumped more carbon CO-2 credits/footprints into the air these last five years than all the cars, trucks, buses, trains, airplanes ever invented.

If the oceans rise 30 feet and Californians coasts becomes Arizonans,

I call it poetic justice.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:09 am 41. asdf:

Derek:

CO2 is not the reason Venus is hotter. It has an atmosphere where mercury does not, not to mention all the volcanic activity so i think you should just do some reading for yourself and not drink the Gore kool aid. Co2 in not a polutant, it vegie food.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:10 am 42. JED:

Junk science has become the side whore of politics. One is used for funding,the other is used to convince. As they have become inseperatable, the trick is to tell one from which. Watch your pocket book disappear.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:10 am 43. uburoisc:

A few years back, I was taking a university biology course, and the instructor, a political activist moonlighting as a biology teacher, would give the class a daily dose of green catastrophe theory about everything falling apart beneath heaven and on earth. She had environmental pamphlets out on the table and every biological phenomenon was connected (erroneously) to some capitalist industry or another. She was an ignoramus of the highest order, who routinely lied to promote her ideology. At one point she blamed over-population for the famine caused by the Chinese Great Leap Forward. I suffered in silence to get my grade, but I’ll never forget what a fool can be permitted to parade around in the clothing of science. I’ve since met many like her in my academic career.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:11 am 44. asdf:

Boris:

And water vapor is the most abundant gree house gas so why are you guys not rallying against running hot water which creates steam which is water vapor? Move out of your moms basement and take the foil hat off.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:14 am 45. asdf:

co2 is not the only reason i should say. co2 does not explain the warming on Mars for instance.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:16 am 46. Cybergeezer:

It’s now chic to be a fanatic of some kind; Whether muslim, Dumocrat, politically correct cop, Obama lackey, or climate change fanatic.
There must be something mystical lacking in their childhoods. Fortunately, I’m not drinking whatever they are.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:19 am 47. keithacita:

our lord and savior al gore

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:24 am 48. Marie Claude:

well, the problem is that our elder paysans’ wise words are lost, like a civilisation based on oral knowledge ; they could predict the weather just by looking at the sky, how the cloulds are configurated, how they move, how the birds are flying… they also could remember the exceptional years of heat, of frost, raining, or what their elders told about theirs, that were kinda some marcks in generations life.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:32 am 49. fear Obama:

Does Obamessiah bow to Al Globular?

Or does Al Globular bow to Obamessiah?

I cant wait to find out,
maybe
After all this Ice melts.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:37 am 50. Boris:

asdf:

And water vapor is the most abundant gree house gas so why are you guys not rallying against running hot water which creates steam which is water vapor? Move out of your moms basement and take the foil hat off.

Well, I am against needlessly running hot water, since it wastes energy. However, water vapor levels in the atmosphere are a function of temperature, and any human release of water vapor is not consequential. (Except for stratospheric anthropogenic H2O, but that’s a tiny factor at the moment.)

Friendly Girl,
It is always sad to see someone, like yourself, who takes great pride and joy in their ignorance.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:47 am 51. David S:

When this worm finally turns, you can eat your words.

There is no rational reason to continue massively polluting the atmosphere with fossil fuels.

Only sustainable lifestyles will survive.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:48 am 52. goy:

- When this worm finally turns…

Heh. Most of us won’t be around when the sun goes supernova.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:00 am 53. Wearyman:

“4. In real science we never smuggle untested premises into the words we use.

The very term “greenhouse gas” is an unproven assumption. Don’t even use it unless you are prepared to prove that C02 and methane actually raise world temperatures. So far the evidence doesn’t look good.

6. In real science we never corrupt the integrity of research by slanting grants toward any preconceived idea. Nor do we allow ourselves to be rushed into making huge claims without adequate testing and debate. Political deadlines mean nothing in real science.”

Anyone else notice something missing here?

POINT NUMBER FIVE ISN’T THERE!

Please either re-number and edit to reflect 7 points, or restore point number 5.

Other than that, fantastic article!

Thanks!

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:02 am 54. JFP:

BC: “Heysus S. Christie — right wingers really, REALLY should stay as far as possible from the topic of global warming: you open your mouth and every single demeaning cliche about the modern conservative Republican comes true, especially the bit about how you guys hate science.”

So, what do you say to Alexander Cockburn? He’s on the left, and he’s a skeptic.

And as far as hating science goes, was it a Republican who said that Newton’s “Principia” was a rape manual?

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:03 am 55. David S:

@48

None of the elders have seen climate change like this before. Just ask your Inuit friends.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:04 am 56. Chemman:

I’m a retired chemistry teacher. Mr Lewis is correct about being careful in placing too much trust in models and the modeling nature. I had to take great care while teaching about the structure of the atom to get the students to understand that the various models used were only to help them glean an understanding of the structure for in truth the model was like a dot on a piece of paper compared to the multi-dimensional aspects of the real thing. I also am a skeptic when “scientists base the vast majority of their hypothesis on data derived from models. Any good hypothesis must make a prediction, and when the predictions do not pan out you go back and modify the hypothesis, you don’t just explain the data that falsifies your hypothesis away. When I start seeing the modifications, retesting and open sourcing of information so others can run the same experiments then maybe they will be able to convince those of us who currently are rational skeptics.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:10 am 57. Steve P.:

James Lewis writes: “But what worries me most is that the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t.”

Science is a method of seeking knowledge, not an organization or institution, so therefore Science cannot lose credibility. Additionally, every modern convenience and life-saving instrument or machine we have developed has been the result of some scientific endeavor, so to argue that all of Science and its contributions ought to be discredited over your disagreement over global warming, is frankly retarded.

Sure, individual scientists can lose credibility by falsifying the results of experiemnts, etc. but that does not cast doubt on Science as a whole. Just as I doubt that anyone on this board would argue that the “credibility of Christianity may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t” because of the individual sins of a number of Christians like Ted Haggard or the collective sins of pedophila of the Catholic Church.

Attacking Global Warming or the scientists who are proponetns of it is one thing. But attacking the field of Science as a whole is misguided and ignorant. The future of this country depends on smart scientists to create the next generations of great technologies. When you frame science as the enemy, you forfeight your future to morons.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:12 am 58. Jarhead91:

David S: Are you using a solar-power PC? Do you live on an Amish farm? Do you get around by bike or on foot?

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:15 am 59. Anton:

Derek, It has been a long time since I took fourth grade astronomy, but IIRC Mercury’s “day” is almost the same as it’s “year” causing one side of the planet to face the sun for sixty or seventy Earth days. This would go far as to explaining the extreme temperatures. Check Wikipedia for a fuller explanation.

Science is interesting if you aren’t busy treating as an excuse for a weird religion.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:17 am 60. Derek:

“CO2 is not the reason Venus is hotter. It has an atmosphere where mercury does not, not to mention all the volcanic activity so i think you should just do some reading for yourself and not drink the Gore kool aid. Co2 in not a polutant, it vegie food.”

Yeah… it has an atmosphere. Why does having an atmosphere matter? Could it be because it’s atmosphere contains an abundance of greenhouse gases? I mean… JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST 2ND MOST ABUNDANT EMISSION FOUND IN VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS. Here’s a hint, it starts with carbon and ends with dioxide.

It’s like you people take pride in being ignorant.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:20 am 61. Derek:

“And water vapor is the most abundant gree house gas so why are you guys not rallying against running hot water which creates steam which is water vapor?”

Human activities don’t add water vapor to the atmosphere. The atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor at one time, otherwise it just condenses right back to a liquid.

Meanwhile, we KNOW humans have contributed to CO2 increases in the atmosphere because burned fossil fuels leave a particular isotope of carbon.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:32 am 62. Pat J:

Okay. So why don’t we just forget about AGW and live healthier lifestyles? Do little things like recycle. Ride a bike instead of driving a car. Not pollute our rivers and streams. Use solar power instead of burn coal. Grow hemp for paper instead of cutting down trees. I mean, there are 6.2 billion of us. More people than ever in human history. Let’s not foul our own proverbial nest and maybe, just maybe we won’t have to worry about global warming.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:36 am 63. Peter the Bubblehead:

To Derek @60:

So why don’t we just put a big stopper in all our volcanos. They’re obviously a big problem as far as global warming goes.

The point we’re making is that Venus has NOTHING to do with Earth’s temperatures. There is too much different to hold Venus up as a model. The atmosphere is much thicker, the clouds are made of sulphuric acid, it’s 3/10ths the distance closer to the sun than our planet. You might as well hold up Saturn’s moon Triton as a model of global cooling for the Earth, it makes as much sense!

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:38 am 64. ConservativeGirlie:

I want to know when we’re going to rip the Nobel Prize from Al’s hands and give it to someone that actually earned it, instead of someone reading a script for a fictional slide show.

The Nobel Prize lost all of it’s credibility the day it got awarded to that idiot.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:42 am 65. ThinkingPerson:

Pat J….For once I agree with you. I just wish we would stop pouring tax dollars into Gore’s agenda (and bank account). Recycling and riding a bike instead of driving, etc would be beneficial monetarily and more healthy overall. It’s the politically driven part of the global warming argument from Washington and Hollywood that are maddening (and wrong). I still believe the Earth goes through cyclical patterns of warming and cooling irregardless of what we are doing on it’s surface. But, as you pointed out there are billions of us now and it would behoove us all to make better use of what we’ve got and to save a bit for future generations.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:50 am 66. ajacksonian:

As a geologist what has always gotten to me was that the carbon dioxide levels we have now are some of the lowest they have ever been in the history of Rock 3 from the star Sol. You can go back to the carboniferous and find levels of carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor all much, much higher than they are today by at least a factor of 20. Yet… the planet was not only *not* in a runaway greenhouse affair, but reached a steady temperature that is constantly seen during eras of global single connected oceanic flows. You want to go back to the lovely warmth of the cretaceous, then slow down the continents, get rid of the isthmus between the two Americas and let the continents settle down and get those lovely oceanic waters on them to shallow depths so they can retain more heat.

Atmosphere sucks as a heat retention mechanism unless you can get it very dense, like Venus. Plus Venus is just a tad closer to the sun than we are…

AGW did not explain any of the artifacts of the historical record seen in geology. As a hypothesis it failed at the get-go. Mind you, when geologists talk about nasty extinction level events, you usually get something that is: 1) nasty, 2) unstoppable, 3) natural in cause. Megavolcanic events, boloids impacting the planet, gamma ray bursts… global warming? Of *course* it is warming we are coming out of an ice age and the little ice age. But then that is pointing to historical evidence in the scientific record. Can’t have that, now, can we?

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:50 am 67. AlexinCT:

All one has to do is look at the proposed solution that the AGW cultists are pushing to know we are dealing with a scam of epic proportions. As an engineer I would expect that if this AGW thing was a real danger these people declaring “The end is nigh” would all be demanding engineering solutions that would directly affect the problem and its consequences/effects. I would have expected them all to demand we switch to nuclear energy – the only clean and viable solution that provides the energy a growing world needs – at a minimum, and then looked at building infrastructure that would compensate for these massive catastrophes they keep predicting. But their solutions are all incredibly light on any kind of viable and effective engineering solutions. Instead we only have them offering a political solution, global collectivism.

The facts are simple. These people can’t create a decent model to predict weather a month out. Forget a year. And yet they want us to believe these computer models they never allow anyone to analyze are predicting weather accurately 50 years out. As someone already said: if they knew what they where doing, the AGW cultists would have used data from the 1950s to predict 1990s weather accurately. Every time they have tried this they ended up with the same stupid world ending predictions they are currently pushing. That because their models are so heavily biased to show catastrophic warming that nothing short of putting in data that would mirror a coming ice age will yield anything but a warming catastrophe. And yet we are forced by a complicit media and political class that are pushing the political solution to keep pretending this stuff isn’t an insult to science. Anytime I hear people telling us we should ignore the effects of the sun and focus on the effects of man I shiver. This is like telling someone boiling water for spaghetti on a stove that the real reason the water is boiling is not the stove heating it, but the pinch of salt he added to the water. Stupid beyond belief.

Beware these charlatans that push these globe and life ending catastrophes so they can scare you into accepting political compromises you would never do otherwise. Especially when they use consensus instead of real science to try and bludgeon their opposition like the AGW cultist have been doing.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:50 am 68. Anton:

Ooh, it looks like Derek missed his nap.

Try to stay with reasoned expanations Derek, WRITING IN ALL CAPS JUST MEANS YOU DON’T HAVE A RATIONAL ARGUMENT.

You are correct about the volcanic emmissions (although we are not sure about the exact composition of Venusian volcanic gases), you missed the point of the vast amount of heat released by those same eruptions. The continuing release of gases (of all types)keep the atmosphere very dense, the non-stop eruptions help keep it heated.

The atmospheric density has a huge impact on temperatures, Venus has a very dense atmosphere, this is one of the main reasons it is so hot. The places on the Eart’s surface that are below sea level have a denser atmoshphere and are also subject to higher temperatures that the surrounding areas.

Science is interesting if you aren’t busy treating as an excuse for a weird religion.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:51 am 69. Jim Baker:

Steve P,
So what is YOUR position on the accuracy of the Global Warming Theory? If your position is that it is based on junk science and that it has been taught as a religion in our schools, you would probably be willing to accept the thesis that belief in this theory is damaging to the reputations of legitimate scientists as well. I don’t think that you would be retarded. I also don’t think anyone was framing science as the enemy here, moron.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:52 am 70. Frank:

“Global Warming” which they now call “Climate Change” because the science actually showed that the Earth was cooling, not warming, but to admit this would be to expose the entire scam to light. Most people are too preoccupied and indeed atrophied and apathetic to notice the subtle difference in meaning of “GW” and “CC”

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:53 am 71. David S:

@58. Jarhead91:

Are you using a solar-power PC? Do you live on an Amish farm? Do you get around by bike or on foot?

The point is that we should not be subsidizing the pollution of our planet. My personal behavior is not really relevant. Of course, I do use a low-watt computer and travel by bike and foot regularly.

The funny thing is, the folks denying global warming don’t actually have any facts to cite. They use anecdotal evidence, but can’t refute the facts on the ground. Usually they will dismiss any data that does not agree with their hypothesis. That’s not science – that’s religion. Which is exactly what AGW deniers are defending.

Your religion is dangerous to the planet – much more dangerous than any other.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:56 am 72. Self-hating Boomer:

All this shows is that we all have our price. The Gramscian environmentalists understood this, and found a useful idiot by the name of James Hansen to start a crisis, which then generates a torrent of research money. And once you have money, you can get whatever answer you want.

Hansen is enjoying more fame and fortune that he ever could have dreamed of as a prophet of doom than as a scientist with integrity. So much so that many others (*cough Mann cough *) have jumped on the gravy train.

We all have our price. Scientists are no exception.

And warmatologists, please don’t try the “Lindzen took Exxon money” canard; his $10,000 is nothing compared to the $250,000 Hansen got from Kerry -er- the Tides foundation.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:59 am 73. Bugs:

“Only sustainable lifestyles will survive.”

This is basically apocalyptic thinking. Instead of the Second Coming, we now have catastrophic environmental breakdown. And we have our own versions of God and his Prophets, who warn us to repent our sins before it’s too late. And of course we have “the chosen” who will survive because they listened to the warnings and adopted sustainable lifestyles.

I think I would trust these people more if they abandoned their “the end is nigh” predictions and just worked hard for a better environment. As it is, they sound like modern Millerites. This doesn’t mean they’re wrong about the existence of AGW – it just means they’re making themselves look like fanatics and thereby losing a lot of valuable allies.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:08 am 74. Jeannette:

My astronomy professor, in 1988, predicted a few more years of global warming, followed by global cooling; he said there has been a pattern for millions of years and showed us a chart with estimated temps going waaaay back; every 11 or 12,000 years, temps rise for a while. He said global warming was caused by the SUN. Poor guy didn’t have Dr. Gore’s expertise to rely on yet, I guess.

I’ve seen those charts since then, but they’ve been truncated. They now show temperatures beginning just after the penultimate cycle of warming. (ie, the beginning of the last cooling period) I guess the AGW guys are all Young Earth Creationists, if they’ve ignored temperatures before then?

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:09 am 75. Pat J:

65. ThinkingPerson:

Pat J….For once I agree with you. I just wish we would stop pouring tax dollars into Gore’s agenda (and bank account). Recycling and riding a bike instead of driving, etc would be beneficial monetarily and more healthy overall. It’s the politically driven part of the global warming argument from Washington and Hollywood that are maddening (and wrong). I still believe the Earth goes through cyclical patterns of warming and cooling irregardless of what we are doing on it’s surface. But, as you pointed out there are billions of us now and it would behoove us all to make better use of what we’ve got and to save a bit for future generations.
——————————
Thanks. I agree with you wholeheartly.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:13 am 76. goy:

The funny thing is, the folks pushing global warming don’t actually have any facts to cite. They use computer models, but can’t refute the facts on the ground. Usually they will dismiss any data that does not agree with their hypothesis. That’s not science – that’s religion. Which is exactly what AGW hucksters are practicing.

So which is it, Dave? “Facts on the ground” or “anecdotal evidence”. WTF do you think “facts on the ground” are, anyway? Do you think computer model output data are “facts on the ground”? Because that’s all your AGW priests have as “evidence”. They wrongly predicted hurricane activity for years running with exactly the same type of computer modeling and exactly the same confidence intervals they’ve used to “predict” global warming.

Right now, the real facts on the ground – the “anecdotal evidence” – point to cooling, not warming. That correlates perfectly with the facts the AGW priests dismiss: that CO2 follows warming trends, it doesn’t precede them.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:16 am 77. steeple:

Pat J, who says that those of us who don’t believe in AGW are bent on destroying the planet? I’m in the oil industry and most of the people I work with cherish the beauty of the outdoors and try to live a conservative lifestyle. But my peers also believe in making wise investments with our hard-earned capital. Before we spend hundreds of billions (likely much more) to solve a problem, we’re just saying that the evidence needs to support the proposition. Because capital used here won’t be available to solve problems such as eradicating malaria, providing clean water to those who don’t have it, and all of the many other problems the world has that could be materially improved for a much smaller investment.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:18 am 78. Ian Thorpe:

Likewise Big Bang theory.

Many scientists will claim “it has been msthematically proved” though equations do not prove anything. Just as a thinking person questions much of the climate change data so a thinking person must quickly sopt the many flaws in Big Bang theory.

I often challenge scientists who are beating up religious philosophers in British blog threads. Once I question the veracity of Big Bang they immediately accuse me of being a creationist which is a ludicrous assumption (and scientists say they do not make asumptions.) Big Bang theory, that there was an explosion and everything popped into being out of nothing is a lot closer to creationism than my position which is that 10 billion years is an unimaginable amount of time and 10 billion light years is an unimaginable distance. We simply don’t know how the Universe originated, in scientific terms we don’t even have a clue about the scientific origins of life on earth though that is much closer to home.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:24 am 79. Byron Dickens:

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. Funny thing is, there are only two SUVs on the whole planet, and they are both solar powered. Are our little electric rovers causing Manmade GlobalWarming ™ there, too.

Or is it because the Sun – the source of all our light and heat – is hotter now than it has been in decades? And since Mars is further out than Earth is, wouldn’t that warmer Sun affect Earth too?

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:31 am 80. wormburner:

I know nothing anybody says will convince you dead-enders that Climate Change is real, but as a person who has worked in oceanographic research, specifically in relation to atmospheric change let me share some theories with you….

1) The chemical effects of CO2 will be a problem long before we can prove without a shadow of a doubt that temperatures are rising. So, the term Global Warming is not a good one as the temperature has been rising for a million years, faster over the last 10.000 year, and possibly even faster in the last 100.

2) You are not even told how serious this problem is. For instance, I recommend reading Lovelock. Lovelock is a Brit scientist that spent most of his career developing brilliant devises use in what we would now call Homeland Security: DNA sniffers, Chemical trackers, ect. He is hardly a liberal but is one of the smartest people alive today. He took up CC later in his career with hope of inventing technologies to help solve the situation. Wiki. has a pretty good summary of his conclusions. Enjoy reading what your kids and grandkids will go through knowing that you went to you grave as part of the problem. Instead of manning up to the problem, you toed the corporate stooge line.

3) Oil companies, Conservatives, Liberals, 1000’s of scientists, Car companies, insurance companies, and almost every government in the world are all in agreeance on this. If people with vested interests are admitting that the evidence is mounting up, whats the hold up with you people? Having a cold year and saying,”See its all conspiracy.” is basically spitting in the face of people who have worked their @sses off so we, or our kids, might have a secure future. That would be like me saying Homeland Security is a fraudulent, lying, conspiring organization just out for their 6 figure incomes.

In order to become a research scientist, a person must get an undergraduate degree, a graduate degree, a PHD, do a Post-Doc, then earn their credibility through years of hard work a peer review before their opinion means something: all for a meager salary (considering the level of education) Conspiracy is IMPOSSIBLE.

Please site one well respected scientist that makes a well reviewed argument for the contrary. BTW your crappy MBA doesn’t make you an expert on this issue.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:38 am 81. Ann141:

40 fearobama (and I do)…there’s a related point you perhaps didn’t intend to make.

If indeed the Pacific ocean rises 30 feet, we’ll get rid of a majority of the financial, liberal stupidity west of the Mason-Dixon line, as long as it rises fast enough that the California government drowns, along with a couple million illegals.

I’m not seeing the down side here.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:39 am 82. bear:

I’m not going to dispute the existence of the green house effect like the author…which is palin ridiculous. But at the same time I question the assumptions and variables that the modelers are using. I have always maintained that it is prudent to limit our polution whenever possible, but I’m not convinced that the focus solely on CO2 is even close to correct. I think number 22’s comment pretty much summarizes the end game of those driving this crusade.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:54 am 83. bear:

Freudian slip on Palin ridiculous, but probably appropriate (keyboarding isn’t my strength)

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:55 am 84. Magic:

Science has already started to lose its creditability fewer and fewer students believe it anymore. Few students have any desire to engage themselves in the hard sciences because of their lack of faith.
The constant barrage of bad or poor information to try and secure the individual scientist funding leads to disbelieve in the results. The AGW theory has been under studies now for at least a decade with massive expenditures of funds by many government and private agency without any real substantive proof, the theory just keeps going on. Non scientist like Mr. Gore and Mr. Hanson continuous blaming of every bad event that happens on global warming is just eroding the faith and creditability of science away. The lack of knowledge or understanding from the journalistic community and the organized media only makes the political, scientific, and media cover up more apparent.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:59 am 85. wildman:

wormburner:
1. is the CO2 issue chemical or thermal?
2. Lovelock does not provide any math to prove his hypothesis in the wiki entry. without math, its an opinion. if it has math, there is peer review and the equations have to proof out.
3. And the basis of their agreement is?
4. The word is cite
The thrust of your disagreement is everybody agrees why dont you.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:00 am 86. jw:

The global climate of the Earth is continually changing. We are now in an interglacial period, in a cycle of 20,000 years, and are headed into another Ice Age (in 10,000 years). See the Imbries’ book ICE AGES. There are other determinants for global climate as well – ocean currents, movement of continents, from time to time, volcanoes. Those propounding the theory that the global climate is affected by human activities are anti-science. And why should global warming be bad, if it is occurring (which I doubt)?

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:01 am 87. nadadhimmi:

#51..David S. If you want to stop polluting the air with fossil fuels, get the hell off the computer, it uses fossil fuel generated electricity. The plastic contained in it, and your butt plug, are polluting. Stop eating that vegan diet, it produces methane in your intestines from hard to digest plant material. In fact, I rec you kill yourself immediately so your “carbon footprint”, and ACTUAL carbon be returned to the Planet to nourish Mother Gaia. To do otherwise is hypocritical in the extreme. Taking this to a logical conclusion can get nasty, don’t you think?

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:03 am 88. bear:

The Gaia types are probably correct in that we are due for a dramatic population reduction
by our own doing or nature’s. Without looking at the models I’m sure that there is a population rate of change factor that drives the model significantly. (although no one wants to acknowledge that our numbers are what is endangering the planet) The world was once a hotter place. It was once a colder place. it will be again.
Regardless how you want to spin it.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:06 am 89. David W. Lincoln:

As long as those who copiously imbibe the koolaid of kyoto use insults to counter people who don’t see climate change
as they see it – we will continue to see the degradation of life by those who pay lip service to open-mindedness.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:11 am 90. Delia:

Henny-Pennyism is here (and is quite a profitable racket)! Meanwhile, back at the ranch…Al Gore’s own ginormous “carbon footprint” is the elephant in the room.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:25 am 91. James Lewis:

Thank you all for your comments, many of them right on target. To clarify, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ smuggles in the unproven premise that C02, etc., actually increase atmospheric temps in nature. But all the direct evidence comes from laboratory experiments. The term ‘greenhouse gas” is therefore a generalization from the lab to the hypercomplex, nonlinear, and incompletely known earth. The actual ‘greenhouse signature” of C02 in the atmosphere is far too small in a hypercomplex system to attribute causality in raising temperatures. That is why the term represents a wild speculation, or really, a lie.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:28 am 92. Steve P.:

Jim Baker writes: So what is YOUR position on the accuracy of the Global Warming Theory?

When an overwhelming majority of scientists comes to the same conclusion, that conclusion should be taken seriously; on the other hand, individual scientists, like everyone else, want to be popular and prosperous and have been known to exaggerate or even change experimental results and findings for personal gain and to conform to popular societal beliefs. Eugenics is a classic example. The ideas of genetic purity and a master race were very popular in the early 20th century, so many scientists rushed to put out papers that supported the theory. Obviously, the theory was crap, so we all know now that these stacks and stacks of pro-eugenics papers were based on pseudo-science.

The pertinent difference between Eugenics and Global Warming is that whereas Eugenics was based entirely on unscientific phenomena, much, not all, but much of Global Warming theory is based on observable, measurable phenomena. It may be exaggerated or misread by individual scientists, media, etc. for personal gain, but the multitude of observable phenomenon that make the case for Global Warming can’t be ignored. That doesn’t mean that all the pieces fit or that the facts are indisputable, etc., all it means is that there is a huge consensus based on observable data that points heavily in one direction.

Jim Baker writes:If your position is that it is based on junk science and that it has been taught as a religion in our schools, you would probably be willing to accept the thesis that belief in this theory is damaging to the reputations of legitimate scientists as well. I don’t think that you would be retarded.

No. Creationism/Intelligent Design is junk science. Global Warming is exaggerated and unclear but still has scientific merit.

Jim Baker writes:I also don’t think anyone was framing science as the enemy here, moron.

Yes, the author was framing science as the enemy when he wrote that “the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t.” Moron.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:28 am 93. ked5:

#19 Derek,

It’s that big ball in the sky.

AGW is illogial because it doesn’t take into account all the physics involved in climate. It downright ignores most. (have you *ever* looked at the formulary for how they do a smoothed temperature grid? it’s a joke). AGW’ers viciously attack all the disciplines of physics that contradict it. Plus, Hansen is a known data manipulator to get the results he wants. (oh, it was *just* a mistake. yeah, right. A responsible scientist getting those results would have double checked the data.)

Oh, and if you get into *legitmate* science with reproduciable experimental results, the solar physicists and climate physicists will tell you the recipe to get global temperature changes.

The sun’s magnetic field + cosmic-rays = low elevation cloud cover (or lack of), and viola – you have temperature.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:29 am 94. Anton:

My favorite part is when you ask the guy running the “climate model” (a.k.a. bull$*^t-engine) to run it backward with known data and then explain the last few Ice Ages. None of them work. The models cannot show why they started, why they lasted or why they ended.

They also fail to explain why the planet didn’t burn up during the Carboniferous Period (neat name huh?) when the C02 level many times higher than it is now. IIRC gaseous insulation is generally an inverse geometric equation; i.e. you have to square the amount of gas to double the “greenhouse” effect. It is not a linear effect, but the models seem to treat it as such.

I am far more concerned aout the toxins the Chinese are pouring into the air and oceans than about whether the ocean rises an inch or two. Nobody will drown if the water moves inland at a meter or two a year. If the algea in the oceans die off we are all screwed. This is a real threat and one we can do something about in the near term.

Money being pissed away on carbon-cap-and-trade enrichment scams (for the freinds of the elites) could be far better spent cleaning up the industries that are really poisoning our air and seas.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:35 am 95. David S:

@73

Actually, it is a tautology. If a practice is unsustainable, by definition it will not survive. Sustainability is the only option – we can get there by choice or by force.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:38 am 96. Thomas:

Is it even worth pointing out another glaringly obvious thing? Those who most adhere to the “science” of AGW have no strong religious beliefs. Is it another case in the long history of stand for something or fall for anything? If there were no God, we’d invent one?

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:41 am 97. GB:

Dana.P , SF:

Put down the Kool-aid and read this, written by a real scientist. He explains the non-sequiter of your bogus awards argument:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THEAMAZINGSTORYBEHINDTHEGLOBALWARMINGSCAM3.pdf

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:48 am 98. David S:

@96

Thomas,

Science is not invented out of whole cloth. AGW is well established by the evidence of observation.

God, on the other hand, is invented out of whole cloth. Religion is established by the evidence of revelation.

The nature of science is that independent observers will come to the same conclusions, as they have with AGW.

The nature of religion is that independent observers will come to various conclusions, as they have with God.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:50 am 99. e:

There have been a few comments about greenhouse gas theories being bogus. It is a physical phenomenon, the question is how big of a factor it is.

It works that our atmosphere is permeable to different frequencies of light. Certain wavelengths get absorbed & reflected or passes right though the atmosphere. CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses reflect/absorb some wavelengths of infrared (heat). That at least is true, how (and to what extent) this works into the entire Earth-Sun system is what is unknown.

Back to your debate.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:55 am 100. Boris:

The term ‘greenhouse gas” is therefore a generalization from the lab to the hypercomplex, nonlinear, and incompletely known earth. The actual ‘greenhouse signature” of C02 in the atmosphere is far too small in a hypercomplex system to attribute causality in raising temperatures.

This is nonsense. If it weren’t for the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 33`K cooler. I don’t even know what you mean by “greenhouse signature” and why you assume it’s “too small.”

Since Greenhouse gases are interdependent, it’s hard to measure exactly how much CO2 contributes, but it contributes at the minimum, 9% of the greenhouse effect. This number is undisputed in the scientific literature and dates from Ramanathan and Coakley, 1978.

And, BTW, the development of MODTRAN and other radiation codes (in the 1940s, mostly by the US military) relied on meticulous observations of the “hypercomplex” atmosphere. The resulting IR profile has been used for decades for a wide variety of applications. It’s accuracy has been confirmed again and again through the years.

So, stop making stuff up and actually research the topics you write about.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:59 am 101. ked5:

#74 Jennette

go to wattsupwiththat.com it’s an excellent science blog. They really get into the science of this stuff.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:01 am 102. Steve P.:

Thomas writes: Is it even worth pointing out another glaringly obvious thing? Those who most adhere to the “science” of AGW have no strong religious beliefs.

Yes, I think is very pertinent to point out that, generally speaking, those who outrightly deny global warming believe wholehertedly in pixies, goblins and flying spaghetti monsters, while those who accept the theory of global warming in some capacity have great difficulty believing in a flying bearded immortal superman who wants you to sacrifice goats to him and not wear condoms.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:19 am 103. wormburner:

85

Thank you for a civil response…

CO2, as most people know, forms carbonic acid in water. What oceanographers are seeing is the overwhelming of the oceans buffering capacity in areas of heavy mixing (ie the surface), with pHs in the 7’s with no effects from fresh water. Low pH’s are harmful to marine animals, especially invertebrates.

The ocean has plenty of buffering capacity, however the ocean overall is not well mixed due to thermal stratification. This is why most of the ocean is clear and relatively nutrient free.

If carbon can be assmilated back into the food chain, it is chemically bound up, and will be eventually carried to the bottom of the ocean where it can be stored. There are very few places where the Nitrogen, and Phosphates on the surface are high enough to be biologically packaged up with carbon to enter the food chain. This is analogous to growing plants in sand: plenty of CO2 but no phosphates or nitrogen = poor growth and little CO2 uptake.

So the answer is both thermal and chemical. The chemical seems like a problem that has begun already in earnest.

As for Lovelock, he is more of an inventor and theorist. He basis his theories and inventions from existing research. I trust him due to his track record.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:30 am 104. James Lewis:

No, you still don’t get it. Richard Feynman was a pretty good physicist, right? Feynman routinely, over and over again, hammered home the point that “the physics we know is the simple part.” The atmosphere has all kinds of feedback loops that are quantitatively unknown. How many algae are absorbing so-called greenhouse C02? We don’t know. How much reflectance bounces solar energy back into space at a given time of day and atmospheric conditions? How much water vapor is released by warming and serves as a negative feedback loop to moderate warming? Nobody knows. Feynman was exactly right. Decent scientists know what they do not know. Only frauds claim to know what they don’t know, and keep adjusting the models to scare the daylights out of the ignorant.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:31 am 105. Derek:

“The atmospheric density has a huge impact on temperatures”

Of course it does… high density means more heat absorbing gas is packed into the same place.

I mean, you guys talk about atmosphere and temperature, but it’s like you refuse to even TRY to understand why an atmosphere would be capable of holding heat. In case you guys haven’t put two and two together, it’s because there are gases in the atmosphere that absorb IR radiation (heat). That’s called the greenhouse effect.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:32 am 106. Charles Perry:

“The credibility of science may never recover.” That’s a real danger, and to make things worse, the fanatical politicization of the press has made people distrust it. Every year the percentage of people who say they trust the news media grows smaller.
We are facing a crisis of intellectual authority in our society. If people conclude that scientists and journalists are liars, I’m afraid they’ll believe whatever sounds good to them. Scary.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:37 am 107. Jim Baker:

Steve P,
I am not religious and I am not a believer in the Man Made Global Warming Theory. So how do I fit your mold? I am also tired of being called a denier, when I didn’t make up Jesus or Global Warming. It seems like the purveyors of a myth, not the observers of the purveyors, should be the ones explaining their positions. Yo have stated that you think Global Warming is based on more accurate information than Eugenics. Although I don’t believe the conclusions made during the heyday of Eugenics any more than you do, I do think it takes just as big of a leap of faith to believe in either Eugenics or Global Warming. Or Jesus, for that matter. If you can learn to stop lumping the deniers of your beliefs into opposing political groups, I will have an easier time believing that you believe in a scientific theory instead of a political cause. On science, you completely miss the point of the author’s statement, although I would like to see him clarify that point. Was it fun to be called a moron?

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:49 am 108. FLMom:

“I’m not a climatologist. Like most scientists I rarely judge what others do in their fields.”

I believe this explains it all. I have read climatologists who patiently explain that higher SSTs won’t necessarily lead to stronger or more frequent hurricanes because there are so many other factors to consider. Then they accept without question whatever scientists in other fields are saying.

This is one reason I am so skeptical. Too many scientists seem skeptical when the Al Gores are making wild predictions in areas of their own expertise, while assuming accuracy in other fields.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:57 am 109. John Moore:

This is a great article and should be required reading for journalists! However, it would be more effective with a better explanation of the CO2 not a proven green-house gas assertion.

BTW, AGW’s James Hansen’s boss just retired, and, safe in his retirement, wrote what he really thinks about AGW: “I’m a skeptic now.”

The pattern of senior scientists “coming out” as skeptics only when they retire or they are otherwise safe from retaliation is itself a measure of how pathological the scientific climate has become in this area.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:03 pm 110. John Moore:

BC writes:

Climate science is extremely complicated with many details still to be worked out, but one thing that is not at in doubt right now among the scientists involved in it is humankind’s role in the current round of warming.

The first clause should give BC pause. Yes, it is extremely complicated. That, the lack of adequate observational evidence and the use of suspect computer models, and finally the enormous consequences of taking policy actions on the hypothesis all argue for skepticism at this time.

The second clause is simply false. All the research climatologists I know are anti-AGW hypothesis (as it currently stands) and very, very anti-AGW hype – because, as the author stated, is bringing discredit on their profession.

Steve P writes:

but much of Global Warming theory is based on observable, measurable phenomena.

So is intelligent design. It is mostly junk science and its hypothesis is entirely outside the scope of science.

Thus you need to be a little more specific about what these “observable, measurable phenomena.:

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:08 pm 111. AlexinCT:

I see many people here arguing the greenhouse effects and quoting Venus as an example and I can not but conclude these people have no idea what warms our planet. Fist off, Venus is still a heavily active volcanic planet with an atmosphere where the greenhouse gasses dominate. On Venus CO2 comprises 96%+ of the atmosphere, with some other real nasty crap to boot to fill in the gap, because this is what the volcanoes spew into the atmosphere constantly. On Earth these supposed greenhouse gasses that permeate Venus and make it hell show up as trace amounts in our atmosphere. For those that do not understand the meaning of the word “trace” that means we are often talking insignificant amounts in parts per million or billion. The most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor. Earth’s atmospheric CO2 content is so low that for all intents and purposes it can be ignored when compared to any effect that would be had by the water vapor. But the largest amount of energy, that which actually affects the Earth’s temperature and weather, is not trapped in the atmospheric gasses at all but in our oceans. And the energy trapped is from the sun. Of course, as soon as you acknowledge that the engine that drives our climate and weather are the sun and the oceans, you lose that whole AGW argument. If the sun and oceans are the primary and real climate drivers, you lose the ability to blame people and claim a catastrophic event will come about unless people allow this new priesthood to enact global collectivism and control all our lives.

As long as the proponents of AGW ignore the sun and our oceans when talking climate, to push these idiotic arguments about how the real issues are the greenhouse gasses – especially when what they blame the problem on, CO2, is measured in parts per million and completely insignificant – man makes, we are being taken for a ride. Just do a simple experiment. Boil some water on a stove (this represents the sun adding energy to our oceans) and time the boiling point. Now repeat and while the water is getting heated blow some hot breath at the water and see how much faster you can make the water boil. My bet is that unless you like to fudge the data like all these AGW pseudo-scientists, there will be no difference.

These global collectivist doomsayers first told us it would be world famine, then another ice age in the 70s, and finally they told us it was AGW over the last 2 decades that would kill us. That was unless we let them do what they wanted. None of these have worked and where sooner or later exposed as bogus. Soon they will move on to some other catastrophe in the making, but the solution will be again the same collectivist pap. Make fun of them because ridicule is all they deserve.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:10 pm 112. wildman:

derek: The basic premise of global warming is based on observations of the planet venus. Venus has a perpetual high altitude cloud cover of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid aerosols. Both of these compounds in the atmosphere are know to cause cooling not warming. In addition, the permanent cloud cover prevents any and all IR wavelengths from reaching the surface. Venus may be hot, but its probably not the greenhouse effect thats driving it.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:12 pm 113. Delia:

Science is not set in stone.

Theories frequently change and reinvent new ones and then change again.

So, here’s my deal.

I don’t like religious zealots cramming their crap down my throat any more than I like Science cramming their theorems down my throat either.

Hug a tree, smoke a bush, praise a scientific research project, pray to your God or Gods, raise up your new messiah, but don’t try to change the world or the way *I* live via those routes. Eh? I sure as hades don’t want to project my own beliefs on anyone else. I have opinions, questions and even make blunders. Humans ain’t perfekt but riddle me this… Didn’t the dinosaurs fart? I mean…imagine… Whew!

Thankies muchos, for reading my rant!

Love,

Delia

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:16 pm 114. John Moore:

For those who are not familiar with climate modeling, here are some probably surprising facts:

1) The most significant climate models are General Circulation Models (GCM). These divide the atmosphere into vertical layers of horizontal grids – with grid dimensions of tens of kilometers. They then initialize the values of environmental variables in each grid, and start running.

2) GCM’s do not model detailed atmospheric physics. Because of scale limitations and lack of initialization data (and some other factors), they have to estimate (through “parameterization”) the sub-grid scale processes.

Thus, for example: they cannot model a thunderstorm; They cannot model a mountain range. They cannot model cloud droplet formation. They cannot model ocean wave nucleation particle emission. They cannot model ANYTHING except the evolution of grid scale parameters based on grid-scale physical equations, the outputs from parameterizations (very important), the interactions between grids, and the effects of external factors (sunlight, for example).

3) Climate models do not “forecast.” Due to chaos (and other factors), one can not simply initialize a model with today’s measurements and run it through a simulated 50 years or so and then measure the virtual climate.

GCM’s are widely used for weather forecasting, and a majority of meteorologists consider their output not only wrong, but useless farther than 5-7 days into the future.

4) Parameterizations can range from single values to complex algorithms. What they are not is finite element models, but rather best estimates of grid scale behavior of certain parameters based on physical processes to fine scale (and chaotic) for direct modeling.

Lots of good science goes into trying to improve these parameterizations. In the case of weather forecasting, the effects can be (slowly) tested by measuring their impact on model skill.

In the case of future climate with conditions that have never been measured (e.g. CO2 levels not seen since weather has been instrumented), these parameterizations are always suspect, as they cannot be directly tested.

4) Future climate is estimated with these models by setting the parameters for a future earth with certain conditions (say, increased CO2), and then watching the weather that results. They are thus “sensitivity” models – they attempt to predict the sensitivity of the weather (not climate) to parameters such as CO2 levels.

Note that longer term weather phenomena (Rossby Waves, teleconnections (say MJO to intermountain precipitation) simply cannot be modeled in this manner.

All of the alarming climate forecasts are based on these models. They all assume require positive feedback (i.e. the “greenhouse effect” itself will NOT produce much warming without amplification).

Finally, there is lots of good science going on in this field. Unfortunately, there is also some fraud and other unscientific behavior (such as not allowing other researchers to have model source code). Finally, there is a whole lot of “scientific whoring” – where papers have “climate change” tacked onto them just to get funding. The research may be quite valid (say, the effects of reduced precipitation on some biological species), but gets tagged as if it supports global warming. It is this latter research that frequently is quoted in the media as showing the harms of warming.

The very high prevalence of harm rather than benefit in these papers is very suspicious – indicating at a least selection bias in the research or publishing process.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:26 pm 115. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Boris, there’s more to AGW than the greenhouse effect. I think even you know that. Like that convenient little catch-all called “feedback”.

The hard science gets you 1.1 F/CO2 doubling. I’m pretty sure that even you know that. Anything beyond that is wild speculation.

And if Lindzen’s iris hypothesis is correct, the net effect is even less. The feedback is negative.

Cut the “it’s settled” crap, or I’ll have to have a talk with Fearless Leader. And I know you don’t want that.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:38 pm 116. djaces:

Boris:

The reason the signature of CO2 is too small is because it only absorbs energy from a small piece of the energy spectrum. Admittedly it is quite efficient at doing so, capturing a significant part of the energy available at levels as low as 20 ppm, but this means that each incremental addition of CO2 is capturing heat from a diminishing reservoir of untapped energy. Even the AGW theorists recognize this and attempt to circumvent the conundrum by positing a positive feedback between CO2 and H2O, the real 800 pound gorilla of “greenhouse gases”. Of course if this positive feedback relationship existed the Earth would have turned into Venus long before any human was around. If you know of any actual “science” that supports the existence of such a positive feedback relationship I’d appreciate a link. Always willing ti learn.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:46 pm 117. Cybergeezer:

I’d like to know what David S is smoking; Look out! He’s trying to pull the “whole cloth” over your head. It’s probably real warm under there.

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:47 pm 118. Inge:

Good article.
Word of caution though: Never, ever link to Wikipedia on anything ‘climate change’ related, it is deeply biased and dishonest.
Anything that deviates too much in the skeptical direction is immedeately purged.

I just read the last part on the wikipedia entry on the hockey stick for instance, and it stated that:
“This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. Similarly to the original study, this work found that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset.”

Gotta have the last word, right?
Well, problem is that these results have been picked apart as well, it was just the old stuff in a new wrapping.
If someone tries to correct this on this entry, with references and all, I am willing to bet it will be gone within minutes.

The story of the Benny Peiser and Naomi Oreskes entries is very illuminating:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:47 pm 119. Delia:

I’m still waiting for science to answer me the age-old question: Which came first…the chicken or the egg?

Jan 30, 2009 - 12:58 pm 120. Mike Borgelt:

61. Derek:

“Human activities don’t add water vapor to the atmosphere. The atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor at one time, otherwise it just condenses right back to a liquid.

Meanwhile, we KNOW humans have contributed to CO2 increases in the atmosphere because burned fossil fuels leave a particular isotope of carbon.”

Better get on message, son. Even the AGW’s don’t claim CO2 on its own will do much. I’ve seen 0.2 to about 1 deg Celcius. They claim the CO2 will warm the planet so there’s more water vapour. Pity the observational evidence doesn’t back this. The carbon isotope argument isn’t all that good either when you dig into it.

Wormburner: the ocean acidity thing sounds good but the oceans aren’t just chemistry. It is a complex chemical and biological thing not well understood or modelled. Most of the ocean life evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than today. Around 2000ppm or more. Hard to see a problem. Of course this neatly gets around the lack of much warming observed by crying wolf about something else.

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:09 pm 121. David S:

@114

None of your assertions touch on the thesis of the article, and you have offered nothing to support the idea that AGW is a fraud.

There is a lot more to AGW evidence than GCM, setting aside the obvious issues of pollution.

Please don’t pee in the pool. Thanks!

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:11 pm 122. tatanka:

I was trained as a geophysicist and geologist. I am familiar with the computer modeling used to ‘project’ future climate. It is not dissimilar to computer modeling use through geophysics.

It is important to understand that there is a difference between modeling climate and predicting it. Dr. Hansen claims to be an expert is climate prediction but in fact he is not. He is an expert at climate ‘modeling.’ The two things are completely different. Just because one can model something does not mean the model can be used accurately as a predictive tool.

In actual fact, climate models used up to today have not been accurate. When tested against historical data they do no work.

Environmentalists and politicians have relied upon the conclusions of the now disproved climate models used in the IPCC studies even though they know they are ‘bad’ science. This should tell us something about the intention of the these people.

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:35 pm 123. Marc Malone:

#114 John Moore – Thanks for that summary explanation. Very clear. Got to the root of the issue.

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:36 pm 124. John Moore:

David S

No, I don’t argue that all of AGW is fraud. Very few of the scientists involved are behaving fraudulently. However, the AGW movement is very fraudulent, asserting certainty where it doesn’t exist, inflating consensus and then assertingthat consensus is decisive, treating skeptics as heretics, and grossly inflating the hypothesized negative effects (Gore, especially), just to name a few issues. The “scientific whore” effect is very visible and pollutes many fields.

Taken as a whole, AGW is a fraud.

As for GCM’s, they are the basis of the projections on which all AGWs alarmism is founded. They are the ONLY basis of the temperature projections (beyond the simple radiative physics, which is approaching saturation anyway).

If you have other evidence that supports the temperature forecasts, why not bring it out rather than making rude comments. I put out a lot of information in an attempt to inform those who don’t know how GCM’s work and what their limitations are.

As for the CO2 = pollutant issue, that’s an entirely different argument. It is interesting that alarmists, when facing strong attacks on the science of AGW, often revert to it – especially the predicted lowering of ocean PH.

Beyond that PH effect, I don’t know of pollution effects of the trace amounts of CO2 predicted. I do know a researcher who was denied funding after one of his agronomy studies showed that CO2 was beneficial to tree growth.

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:55 pm 125. Mikey:

Wait a minute…if this is true, that AGW is a fraud…….then that would mean that Al Gore is a nut job.

Jan 30, 2009 - 2:05 pm 126. CAUTION:

the thing that ended this for me was the fact that we will only burn about 5% of the carbon in the earth. the rest is simply not going to be mined because it is remote (Under the very deep parts of the ocean.), or scattered. 5% of the carbon is simply not enough cause a long lasting effect on the earths atmosphere, or even remotely enough to cause global warming.

remember R-12, the refrigerant used for many years? true science showed it was harming the ozone. the data was real and well accepted and in a matter of about 2 years, production ceased worldwide. so, yes we will react if the the threat is real.

you should be very nervous. the mindless antiscience crowd have the upper hand now. and many companies are learning that they can make money from this.

Jan 30, 2009 - 2:18 pm 127. Cybergeezer:

126. CAUTION:
You know; You might be on to something! Let me think about that for a while.

Jan 30, 2009 - 2:30 pm 128. Stephen:

@J.Moore: You’re points are well taken. Most folks don’t understand the limitations of the models; i.e. the systems of differential equations that form the models. In fact, some of the applied scientists themselves seem a bit unaware.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:02 pm 129. Roderick Reilly:

Skepticism has reached network TV. An episode of “Law & Order” the other night spent the first 20 minutes dealing with a carbon trading scam and a related one where a fleet of trucks was ruined by a switch to biofuels. Several of the principal characters were voicing the types of skepticisms that appear here. It. Was. Delicious. I truly enjoyed the crap out of seeing and hearing that, since it would reach a major audience. No one on the show offered any rebuttals to the skeptical remarks. No one. It was great, and actually siginificant: An undertow of skepticism and anger is percolating up from the grassroots, and reaching Hollywood.

Now, couple that with so-called “record cold” weather and increasing alarm about bailouts and “stimulus packages,” while the economy continues to tank, and you’re going to have a whole lot of very, very pissed off Americans. The levels of cycnicism will go through the roof.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:08 pm 130. curlyfester:

BIGGEST fraud? Not quite.

The biggest fraud in history is Jesus.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:11 pm 131. Self-hating Boomer:

As for the CO2 = pollutant issue, that’s an entirely different argument.

That argument implies that the concentration makes the pollutant. I think that the environmental industry is going rue the day that they proffered that argument.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:16 pm 132. fear Obama:

I am just a lowly map designer- We hope to put your backyard on Google.

Anyway…

After studing many maps and locations can some of your more liberal Carbon people please tell me why they still call it GREENLAND.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:28 pm 133. Jim Baker:

Environmentalism is a religion and the best thing religions have always done is pass the collection plate. The US government is now helping fill the plate with our tax dollars. The US government is now training our children, with our tax dollars, to keep filling the plate indefinitely. The US government has decided that the preferred religion in our country shall be, Environmentalism. Where are the advocates of the separation of Church and State.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:47 pm 134. David S:

@124 John Moore,

Allow me address your claims specifically.

By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud

You don’t cite any examples. This is a bold claim. How many scientists do you think are knowingly perpetrating fraud? On what basis do you make this determination?

You claim:

it’s beyond outrageous that AGW believers are publicly attacking thoughtful skeptics

while you quote:

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature

Am I really supposed to believe that the CEO of ExxonMobil is a thoughtful skeptic? Really? Wouldn’t a trial give skeptics a chance to prove ‘reasonable doubt’? And what makes putting them on trial “outrageous”, if in fact they have abused the public’s trust?

ExxonMobil is accused of intentionally distributing fraudulent information, and you turn around and accuse the scientific community of doing so – it is a transparent cover. I’m not that easily fooled. Who has the bigger motivation – peer-reviewed scientists, or the most profitable private company in the history of the world?

I just want to talk scientific common sense

That sounds like a good place to start.

How about rebutting James Hansen:

The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385ppm and rising about 2ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than 2C (3.6F) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.

I’m not sure why you characterize my remarks as rude:

When this worm finally turns, you can eat your words.
There is no rational reason to continue massively polluting the atmosphere with fossil fuels.
Only sustainable lifestyles will survive.

In fact, your remarks are much more rude than mine.

As for the CO2 = pollutant issue, the issue is not only the CO2 itself. It is all the associated pollutants that occur in tandem. Think clearly now – where is all the CO2 coming from? Fossil fuels. This is the problem. Coal and Oil fuels are very dirty sources of energy. AGW is only a small part of the negative impact – these resources are finite, so continued dependence will also lead to ongoing military conflict until we move to other fuels. Environmental degradation will continue in the interim.

In 1999, electric power plants produced approximately 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 12 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 7 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

The end result is that we run out of fossil fuels. Period. There is no reason to continue on this path. It is a dead end.

You can’t even show any evidence that AGW is a fraud, much less “The Greatest Fraud in History?”

Perhaps I should have left a one word reply?

“No.”

DS

PS – When you make your list on the second page, you should cite examples. Also, you have misnumbered your seven [sic] points.

Here are seven more fundamental violations of scientific integrity in the AGW game.

1. Observations via satellite are not “lab results”.

2. AGW is not “a wild hypothesis” – it is consistent with observation, not ‘a speculative idea’. It is as true as the evidence.

2. The burden of proof is on those asserting a hypothesis. Nobody is denying this. There is simply more proof for AGW than against.

3. Calling peer-reviewed research “toxic” is hyperbole. If you don’t trust it, disprove it. We have satellites, and AGW is supported by all data.

4. I don’t use the term “greenhouse gas”, but it is in common usage. The evidence really is better than you claim – but you don’t cite anything to support your assertion.

5. Political deadlines mean a lot if your real science shows that your real planet is going to be really distressed by political foot-dragging. I’d say twenty years on is a good time to push harder for action.

6.

In the real world, much less real science, we never, never believe politicians when they claim to know a scientific truth; they are unqualified, and they are professional liars.

This is a great reason to toss your whole argument. There are checks and balances in the scientific community – ExxonMobil doing an end-run is part of the problem.

7. Alcoholism and Obesity are both very complex – just because we don’t understand the mechanism in detail doesn’t mean we should do nothing. Your argument on AGW is akin to telling an alcoholic that his liver might be damaged, but the research won’t be validated for twenty years, so he can go on drinking until then. Or telling an obese person that lack of exercise may be part of their problem, but we’re still studying the process, so they can stay on the couch until the facts are in.

If the AGW hypothesis is true, we can still (hopefully) prevent a catastrophe. If it is false, all we lose is a massively polluting, geopolitically dangerous fuel source.

What is the downside of taking action? Why should we wait?

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:48 pm 135. Boris:

If you know of any actual “science” that supports the existence of such a positive feedback relationship I’d appreciate a link. Always willing ti learn.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml

There’s a lot of literature on this. Soden 2001 is another paper on the subject.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:48 pm 136. freetoken:

When will Pajamas Media gather whatever integrity it has left and present an actual researcher in climatology (or better yet, a panel of scientists who actually work not only in climatology but various specialties dealing with climate change) to present the truth?

What we have here in James Lewis’s article is a perversion of both science and journalism (of whose integrity PJM has indicated a wish to restore)!

An example: after claiming “But in reputable science nothing is published without careful peer review, and the more spectacular the hypothesis, the more intensive the reviews are going to be. That’s why peer-reviewed journals are so vital to a healthy science, and why the constant evasion of peer review by global warming fanatics is a sign of their scientific weakness” what does Lewis do but…. go ahead and link (selectively too) to Wikipedia entries!

So yes, Mr. Lewis, go ahead and look at the peer reviewed journals (in which one will find quite a bit of data about anthropogenic effects upon climate)! If you’d bother to do that, instead of abandoning science to write polemics, you just might learn something.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:52 pm 137. Boris:

The hard science gets you 1.1 F/CO2 doubling. I’m pretty sure that even you know that. Anything beyond that is wild speculation.

It’s about 1degC per doubling of CO2, but there is plenty of evidence for positive feedback in both current observations and coming out of glaciations. Empirical and GCM estimates both center on 3degC/ doubling of CO2.

Jan 30, 2009 - 3:56 pm 138. mrcorbin:

Whether you call it global warming or not, to deny the changes taking place so rapidly in the environment to the north (the Arctic) or the south (the Antarctic) is ignorant. Science has already lost credibility by hanging on a dead theory, the evolution theory. You don’t even have to be religious to discover THAT truth.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:07 pm 139. Peter the Bubblehead:

92. Steve P. wrote:
When an overwhelming majority of scientists comes to the same conclusion, that conclusion should be taken seriously…

Peter writes: And when a majority of those coming to the ’same conclusion’ are doing so only to qualify for grant money, one must be suspect of the conclusions being publicized.

And who says an ‘overwhelming majority’ of scientists have come to the same conclusion? The only people telling me that are the ones trying to push the Global Warming agenda. In real life I have heard or read as many scientists saying the theory is bunk as claim global warming is truth.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:18 pm 140. John Moore:

@Stephen

It’s worse than that. The diff equations are small compared to the parameterization!

@David S

Allow me address your claims specifically.

By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud

I didn’t make that claim! I also didn’t make the next two statements you attribute to me.

Is this the rigor you apply to your study of this field?

How about rebutting James Hansen:

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the
Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how
the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount.

Well, if you are going to use the dubious approach of merely quoting authorities making bald assertions,
you made a bad choice. Perhaps you should
read the words of Hansen’s just retired boss!

As for the CO2 = pollutant issue, the issue is not only the CO2 itself.
It is all the associated pollutants that occur in tandem. Think clearly now – where is all the CO2 coming from?
Fossil fuels. This is the problem.
Coal and Oil fuels are very dirty sources of energy.
AGW is only a small part of the negative impact – these resources are finite,
so continued dependence will also lead to ongoing military conflict until we move to other fuels.
Environmental degradation will continue in the interim.

This is rich

First you say CO2 is bad because of global warming…
But since you know that won’t be accepted, you mention it is a pollutant…
And then when challenged you mention pollutants *merely* related to CO2 production

These are the arguments of a zealot.

Then…

1. Observations via satellite are not “lab results”.

Perhaps you can then show us widely accepted research based on satellite observations confirming AGW.
When satellite data started coming online, it created quite a controversy because it didn’t show the
warming that the hockey-stick prankssters were finding in their massaged ground data.

The burden of proof is on those asserting a hypothesis. Nobody is denying this. There is simply more proof for AGW than against.

The burden of proof is raised for those pushing enormous policy changes based on a hypothesis. Dramattically raised.
“More proof” doesn’t cut it!

IPCC, not exactly an uncontroversial organization but which puts out the reports most often cited by
AGW alarmists, gives a 90% probability of their results being correct. No scientific paper would pass pure review with a .10 score!
.05 is the minimum.

What is the downside of taking action? Why should we wait?

I should leave that as a homework problem, but perhaps you need a little help. How about massive economic disruption,
failure of the action to actually work due to political resistance in countries like China, millions of deaths of
people living on the margin who would be killed by the consequences of the multi-decade economic depression required
to actually meet Hansen’s recommendations.

As to “why should we wait” – how about.. because
we will know more in the future, our technologies will be further developed, so we are more likely to pick the right choices if needed, because doing global harm to humanity based on a scientific hypothesis so corrupted by failures in the scientific process is beyond dumb.

There’s more where that came from.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:22 pm 141. John Moore:

@freetoken

When will Pajamas Media gather whatever integrity it has left and present an actual researcher in climatology (or better yet, a panel of scientists who actually work not only in climatology but various specialties dealing with climate change) to present the truth?

What we have here in James Lewis’s article is a perversion of both science and journalism (of whose integrity PJM has indicated a wish to restore)!

There are plenty of climatology researchers who are strong skeptics on this. There are a lot more who are “in the closet” because they don’t want to lose their careers to the Stalinist tactics of the true believers.

Furthermore, I suspect if you got real researchers together, you would discover that most of them are very narrow specialists unequipped to debate the issue. You would also hear a whole lot more hedges and qualifications than the proponents give. Read the IPCC report, not the politically produced summary, to read some of the many qualifications in there. Note also that the founder of modern climatology has spoken out against the AGW hypothesis as promoted by the alarmists, as had Dr. Hansen’s just retired boss, as has Jim Gray (also senior enough to not lose anything), as have many others.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:26 pm 142. Cybergeezer:

133. Jim Baker:
They’re in the bars where the liberal whores work. Such as David S.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:31 pm 143. Peter the Bubblehead:

119. Delia asked:
I’m still waiting for science to answer me the age-old question: Which came first…the chicken or the egg?

Peter answers: The egg. Because what laid the first chicken egg was, evolutionarily-speaking, not quite yet a chicken.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:37 pm 144. malclave:

Human influence on Climate Change has been debunked as a hoax. If there were any chance it was real, the God-King Obama would not be cranking up the thermostat.

Q.E.D.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:39 pm 145. goy:

- Read the IPCC report, not the politically produced summary…

Good idea.

But actually, even the summary (02/07 version) was flawed enough to destroy the very argument it pretended to make.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:40 pm 146. Andrew Ian Dodge:

Envirofascism is just the latest name for the anti-capitalist movement. Same people, same methods but with a slightly more successful outcome. Al Gore is not even a scientist yet he is listened too spouting off his clearly false ideas.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:40 pm 147. Boris:

John Moore,

Why do you keep acting as if “James Hansen’s just retired boss” knows anything? I can’t find a climate related pub by him, can you?

By the way, he retired in 1994.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:42 pm 148. Peter the Bubblehead:

129. Roderick Reilly wrote:
Skepticism has reached network TV. An episode of “Law & Order” the other night spent the first 20 minutes dealing with a carbon trading scam… I truly enjoyed the crap out of seeing and hearing that, since it would reach a major audience. No one on the show offered any rebuttals to the skeptical remarks. No one. It was great, and actually siginificant: An undertow of skepticism and anger is percolating up from the grassroots, and reaching Hollywood.

Peter writes: It may be sneaking into the public view because L&O (one of my favorite shows in the interests of full disclosure) is written and filmed in New York, far from the western shores of Hollywood. And yes, I realize NYC is as liberal as they come (I was born and raised there) but when it comes to competing with Hollywood, New York has always been a step apart.

Jan 30, 2009 - 4:47 pm 149. David S:

@140 JM,

This is rich

First you say CO2 is bad because of global warming…
But since you know that won’t be accepted, you mention it is a pollutant…
And then when challenged you mention pollutants *merely* related to CO2 production

These are the arguments of a zealot.

No, these are the multiple arguments that all lead to the same conclusion, which you are attempting to avoid discussing – Fossil Fuels cause harm.

Your pathetic attempt to justify delays in changing our emissions failed to address your own examples – the Alcoholic and the Obese Person.

Much like the alcoholic, we are so dependent on the substance that we cannot stop using without some ill effects. However, the ultimate result of improved health is worth temporary discomfort – unless one is terminal. The only way to justify waiting is to assert that the future does not matter, and that we should persist in our behavior until the case is terminal.

You are advocating economic suicide, while claiming to be protecting our economy from disruption. We have plenty of technology ready to be manufactured and to replace the massive consumption of fossil fuels. All that is standing in the way is a massive global industry of oil, auto and coal companies.

You are like the alcoholic who is still in denial. You refuse intervention, and in the meantime you become more and more ill.

If we wait, we will only be farther behind where we could be if we take action now. The cost of postponing this effort is too much to risk.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:00 pm 150. Rubicon:

When one looks at the intended results of the AGW crowd, one sees a system designed to impose an order. The order is socialism. Science does not support their theories. In fact, most real science contradicts what they are selling. This is all based on the flawed & incredibly bizarre concept of the “Precautionary Principle.” They want you to over-react to anything that has even a remote possibility of happening. The odds may be astronomical, but financially emasculating the world is still what they want, while we also grant them the unquestionable power to put on trial & execute anyone who denies their mantra.
Dump Global Warming as an agenda item & lets deal with real problems. Lets not sacrifice the poor in Africa or India or elsewhere, so some can gain power & wealth as they exaggerate science for their own gains.
We could spend our money much more effectively dealing with known killers. We could use our money much more effectively dealing with poverty. We could deal more effectively by allowing freedoms to expand rather than placing only special people in charge of everything in our lives, as though they alone had the all knowing knowledge of what to do, when to do it, how to do it, if we should do it, etc.
The AGW crowd is dangerous because, they are positive only “they” have the answers to anything & everything.
Follow the money on the AGW stuff. Al Gore will make hundreds of millions, if not billions, when Congress makes law to “FORCE” business to buy & sell carbon credits (cap & trade legislation), and he can then just sit back & rake in the money from his Cap & Trade investments.
Hansen will once again, thanks to the Obama people, get over $400 for his Global Warming studies, so he can use it to create even more confusion & perhaps even promote even more of his distorted & incorrect facts that have been exposed for the errors they are.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:01 pm 151. Randy Rector:

My dad worked on car air conditioners from the time they were first invented. Local mechanics and even WalMart would send people for him to repair their air conditioner because he was The Master. I don’t know if he was right from the stand point of physics, but before he passed away he insisted that Freon was a heavy gas, and would go down, not up. So how is it destroying the ozone layer? I’m not qualified to say, but I wonder…

The author’s thesis is certainly worthy, but I think global warming may be the second biggest scientific fraud perpetrated on humanity. The first has got to be evolution. Not environmental adaptation or special breeding within species, but macroevolution–the belief that inanimate chemicals turned into animals and humans all by themselves. We’ve had 150 years of this fraud and it’s still going strong.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:01 pm 152. ~Paules:

Public schooling. Public transportation. Public Housing. Public toilet. Public swimming pool. Oops, I just repeated myself. But what the nation needs now is publicly subsidized wind-farms to fight global warming! Step right up, folks, step right up. Don’t be shy. I have the cure for global warming. Buy a bottle, it’s only a dollar, of Dr. Al Gore’s secret formula. Cures everything from scabies to lumbago, removes stains from carpeting and upholstery, put it in your gas tank to increase mileage, and it’s only a buck.

Why confront a real problem like economic meltdown or Islamic terrorism when the big bucks are in a totally fabricated crisis? Get away from the curtain, boy, there’s nothing there you need to see. Al Gore is a marketing genius right down to his shiny Nobel Peace Prize. The dude needs to take it to Wall Street with an IPO. I’m in! Guilt for sale on this magnitude hasn’t been seen since Johann Tetzel. Sell the mythical to the gullible. Carbon credits don’t even require a wharehouse. Al Gore could teach Ron Popiel a thing or two. Why sell complete crap when you can make the same money selling nothing at all?

I look to Al Gore with deepest admiration. The man put his divinity school education to good use after all. Not too bad for a drop-out. I would gladly sew him robes in purple and gold for just a few shares of stock. Oh please, please, please, pretty please, Mr. Gore, I could sell my conscience too for a few million bucks. Every man has his price. I want a bishopric at least. Even split, 50-50, you and me for the American south-west. Yes, I will kiss your rings. Small price.

Jan 30, 2009 - 5:36 pm 153. GB:

From John Coleman’s article:

“Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, “I think so, but I do not know it for certain”. I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.”

They’ve also declined to reveal their statistical methods, which is extremely unethical in scientific circles.

Why would Al Gore refuse to debate it? He’s made $10 million on this hoax. He and Madoff are cut from the same cloth.

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:28 pm 154. GB:

And more about the fascism of this non-science from Lindzen:

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

From “Meltdown: The predictable distortion of global warming by scientists, politicians, and the media,” by Patrick J. Michaels. Michaels’ book describes the, “the inevitable misconceptions and misperceptions of climate change that have intruded into the public discourse as a result of the logical and predictable behavior of scientists … who use science in a tax payer-funded world.”

And a prediction from Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must always be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become a captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Jan 30, 2009 - 6:38 pm 155. RAP:

Global warming may be bad science but it is good money. The Wall Street bankers who put the Obamatron in the White House will make billions off the cap and trade system. If your making good money who cares if the science is faulty. It is just like Saddam’s WMD. It doesn’t have to exist to be an effective tool.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:12 pm 156. Delia:

Delia asked:
I’m still waiting for science to answer me the age-old question: Which came first…the chicken or the egg?

Peter answers: The egg. Because what laid the first chicken egg was, evolutionarily-speaking, not quite yet a chicken.
~

Bubblehead, you supplied no proof or data..typical.
Thank you for the stand-up comedy though. Most amusing! *muah* ;p

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:22 pm 157. Pat:

eon wrote: “The methodology used to ‘prove’ the existence of AGW is remarkably like that used to ‘prove’ the existence of UFOs (defined as non-terrestrial vehicles).”

That is not what UFO means. UFO stands for “Unidentified Flying Object.” It refers to objects that fly and have not been identified. Any object that is known to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft has been identified and, therefore, is no longer a UFO.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:24 pm 158. Pat:

Delia wrote: “I’m still waiting for science to answer me the age-old question: Which came first…the chicken or the egg?”

That one’s not very hard. Reptiles and fish were laying eggs for millions of years before the first chicken ever appeared on Earth.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:28 pm 159. Linda:

I’m sorry …. I may be just an ignorant layperson but I believe what’s going on with our planet is just a natural cycle that has gone on since it’s creation….warming,cooling,warming, cooling.Life on this planet has come and gone and come again. That which doesn’t adapt or can’t adapt is lost forever.New life forms are being discovered all the time. Genetic mutations that are better equipped to survive on our ever changing planet.Mankind is a relative newcomer to Earth when you think about the age of our planet and we will either adapt or we will go the way of so many extinct species.

Jan 30, 2009 - 7:54 pm 160. Delia:

158. Pat:

-And?

Where did the reptiles come from? The big bang?

amoebae-baters crack me up.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:07 pm 161. Harry Bergeron:

Stop thinking about AGW as a scientific phenomenon, it is social and cultural, and left the realm of science long ago.

AGW is an example of putting our children in the hands of third-rate ideologues who indoctrinate them every day. You can imagine the other false social ideas the average young person holds, which is the source of our present situation.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:10 pm 162. John Moore:

@DavidS

Your pathetic attempt to justify delays in changing our emissions failed to address your own examples – the Alcoholic and the Obese Person.

You continue to imagine that I’m the original poster. I am not.

To address you issue – it is you, not I or anyone else on here, who is arguing outside of the subject, which is AGW.

If you want to discuss fossil fuels, find a better forum. There are plenty of things outside AGW to make us reconsider our long term use of oil.

Jan 30, 2009 - 8:44 pm 163. David S:

@159

I’m all for preventing extinction in my own case. If you would like to remove yourself from the gene pool, I suppose you have the right. I’d like to preserve that right for myself as well, thanks.

Peace.

DS

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:08 pm 164. Kathy:

How can some of you people actually believe that global warming is not one of the biggest threats out there? How else do you explain the polar ice caps melting or the latest ice shelf in Antarctica that is breaking off? Why else are all the polar bears moving farther away from the pole to find food? And lets not even start to think what is happening to the air that we are breathing. There is evidence and proof that global warming is a HUGE threat and it IS happening. Wake up and smell the ice caps.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:26 pm 165. Pat J:

Say what you will, Al Gore is correct in the fact that we need to shift away from fossil fuels to more cleaner greener sources of energy.

I believe AWG is happening because humans have had an enormous impact on the planet’s environment in a miariad of ways. We can either continue to release things that cause chemical imbalances in our finite closed ecosystem or use energy sources that cause less waste and pollution.

Jan 30, 2009 - 9:37 pm 166. blueheron:

Derek, Before you disparage other’s knowledge you should look at the quality of yours:

“Let me guess, your scientific discipline doesn’t involve practical knowledge of chemical physics. Even on a basic common sense level we know the greenhouse effect exists. I mean otherwise there is no explanation for why Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury receives more solar radiation. Or why the average nighttime temperature on Mercury is -330 degrees. And that’s just the common sense side. The scientific kicker would be that we know the absorption bands of particular gases and we know that Solar radiation falls right into some of those bands. So we know that gases like CO2 and CH4 absorb solar radiation.”

and:

“The atmospheric density has a huge impact on temperatures”

“Of course it does… high density means more heat absorbing gas is packed into the same place.

I mean, you guys talk about atmosphere and temperature, but it’s like you refuse to even TRY to understand why an atmosphere would be capable of holding heat. In case you guys haven’t put two and two together, it’s because there are gases in the atmosphere that absorb IR radiation (heat). That’s called the greenhouse effect.”

It is not enough to observe a fact. You must be able to draw a conclusion of the consequences. Since a dense atmosphere holds a lot of heat it can MOVE a lot of heat from one place to another. It’s called the wind. And, yes, I am a chemist.

And while you are looking at your own knowledge base you might look at your vocabulary. You DEVISE a DEVICE instead of making DEVISES and you CITE a paper which might be about a SITE (a location).

Consideration of the composition of the atmosphere of Venus gives clues to why it is such a hellhole compared to Earth.

The atmosphere of Venus is composed mainly of carbon dioxide, along with a small amount of nitrogen and other trace elements. The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere is relatively small compared to the amount of carbon dioxide, but as the atmosphere is so much thicker than that on Earth, its total nitrogen content is roughly four times higher than Earth’s, even though on Earth nitrogen makes up about 78% of the atmosphere.[9][1]
The atmosphere contains a range of interesting compounds in small quantities, including some based on hydrogen, such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF). There are carbon monoxide, water vapor and molecular oxygen as well.[5][2] A large amount of the planet’s hydrogen is theorised to have been lost to space,[10] with the remainder being mostly bound up in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and hydrogen sulfide. Subsequently, hydrogen is in relatively short supply in the Venusian atmosphere. The loss of significant amounts of hydrogen is proved by a very high D/H ratio measured in the Venusian atmosphere.[5] The ratio is about 0.025, which is much higher than the terrestrial value of 1.6×10−4.[2] In addition, in the upper atmosphere of Venus D/H ratio is 1.5 higher than in the bulk atmosphere.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Composition

This ratio implies that the amount of hydrogen was initially 15.6 times higher (.025/.0016) and 93% has been lost (assuming negligible loss of deuterium). Little hydrogen means little water.
Carbon dioxide is removed from earth’s atmosphere by rain and photosynthesis. Without water, carbon dioxide would accumulate. Carbon dioxide is produced by heating of carbonate minerals through volcanism on Earth and Venus. Similarly, sulfur dioxide is produced by heating sulfate minerals. Sulfur dioxide plus oxygen and water produce sulfuric acid tying up any residual water.

On earth these gases are bound into vast beds of limestone, dolomite, and gypsum.

The fact that Venus has four times as much total nitrogen as Earth suggests that Earth may have lost 3/4ths of its original atmosphere, perhaps in the collision that produced the moon. The larger base atmosphere would have been a more efficient greenhouse to begin with and, compounded with the higher solar flux, would have produced much higher initial heat retention.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:14 pm 167. Northstar:

Ever notice how the clamor of global warming has increased “exponentially” to the increase of CO2 and “directly” with the number of enviormentals that moved from the Midwest and New England to Arizona and the deserts of southern California.

Jan 30, 2009 - 10:52 pm 168. Eddie:

“By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud… a massive fraud, the biggest fraud ever in the history of science.”

Scientific fraud is the most serious charge that can be laid against a practising scientist. James Lewis clearly holds information of corrupt scientific practices, from which “the credibility of science may never recover”.

If true, this is a serious situation, as bad as, or perhaps worse than, a major conflict or environmental disaster, for corruption strikes at the heart of our society. Our civilisation depends on the honest practice of science to garner the food we eat, the energy we consume, the medicines that heal us.

Without science our civilisation as we know it is doomed. As Lewis says: “If scientific corruption becomes endemic, we risk losing one of the great jewels of our culture”.

And yet, despite knowing the grave danger we face as a civilisation from corrupt science, Lewis chooses to do nothing but scribble.

How long before a real scientist grows a pair and hauls Gore and co into court to answer for their corruption? The fear seems to have penetrated even into the bowels of Pyjamas Media.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:04 pm 169. Wallace:

NewsFlash to the congregation of the Church of the Holy Global Warming:

Dudes, do you realize that the earth has been warming and cooling in cycles ever since it’s creation [by intelligent design or by evolution]. It’s just the way things are.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:04 pm 170. Fritz:

TO: Dana.P , SF:

“All you whiny neo-cons get a grip. Al Gore has won an Oscar and Nobel because of his brave and very intelligent endeavor to crush American waste, greed and prosperity.”
This and the rest of your post is SUPERB satire.

Fritz

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:12 pm 171. Northstar:

164. Kathy: You need to rethink your comments about the polar bears. Polar bears live on fish and berries. If global warming is happening, there would be more open water making it easier for them to get the fish and longer warmer growing seasons would produce more berries farther north.
Polar bears have almost no natural enimies, other than humans. From the begining of recorded history until recently humans have hunted them for their fur, keeping the population in check. The polar bears are not “moving south” they are “expanding south”.

Jan 30, 2009 - 11:22 pm 172. daddy dave:

Kathy, ah Kathy! You wrote:

“How can some of you people actually believe that global warming is not one of the biggest threats out there? How else do you explain the polar ice caps melting or the latest ice shelf in Antarctica that is breaking off? Why else are all the polar bears moving farther away from the pole to find food? And lets not even start to think what is happening to the air that we are breathing. There is evidence and proof that global warming is a HUGE threat and it IS happening. Wake up and smell the ice caps.”

In brief: arctic ice has been melting, but antarctic ice (overall) has been increasing, except for one shrinking section that global warmists love to point out.
The sea level is not rising (okay there’s an annual change of about 1 mm), so all that stuff about flooding and loss of island nations is nothing but conjecture. “Hot air,” if you like.
If the world was warming, polar bears would be moving to COLDER areas to find food, so that they would still be in a similar environment to what they are used to, and adapted to. If they’re moving away from the north pole, it’s because it’s cold enough for them to survive in other places.

The temperature hasn’t incraased since 1998. The temperature has incereased by a mere 1 degree C over the previous hundred years. There are no records going back before that, so we don’t know how much the temperature varies normally.

Now, it’s your turn. What is the evidence that CO2 heats the atmosphere? (I’m betting you can’t answer). Remember, the original ice core data and the “hockey stick” have both been proven to be wrong.

Jan 31, 2009 - 2:08 am 173. Alex:

AGW/Climate-Change is directly proportional to the girth of Albert Gore’s waistline multiplied by the size of his piehole and wattage per square foot of his homes squared, and divided by the square root of his American Express Air Traveler points cubed. I have a hockey stick graph and power point to prove it and special cgi from an unnamed doomsday movie for added measure. BOO!

Where do I apply for a Nobel?

Jan 31, 2009 - 2:55 am 174. Nomad:

Do you ever hear from “Th scientists” that the sun’s getting HOTTER! The sun’s gonna do what it damn well wants to do. Try stopping that.

Jan 31, 2009 - 5:35 am 175. ked5:

@164 Kathy,

chill about the Antarctic ice shelf. no, wait, I take that back, you should be concerned, but not for the reason you think.

There is consistent and compelling data going back thousands of years, comparing and contrasting ice core samples from greenland and the antarctic, that when Antarctica warms – the rest of the planet gets cooler. and vice versa. The changes are almost instantaneous – there is no lag effect to the reversals. Antarctica has its very own heating and cooling cycles. So what makes Antarctica warm, makes the rest of the planet cool. Buy some longjohns dear, GW is over.

Jan 31, 2009 - 5:48 am 176. Mikey_boy:

from Pat J:
“We can either continue to release things that cause chemical imbalances in our finite closed ecosystem or use energy sources that cause less waste and pollution.”

Perhaps a brief study of science will open up the whole idea that our ecosystem is not “finite” or “closed”. Massive bombardment of meteors early in our planet’s history brought many minerals and elements to earth, and some speculate that even life itself was brought here on meteors. The sun (you may have heard of it – it is quite some distance from here -in fact you may not know that $1 trillion dollar bills laid end to end would go to the sun and back twice, but I digress) has a massive impact on our climate 24 hours of every day.

Jan 31, 2009 - 6:39 am 177. steeple:

John Moore, many thanks for your thoughtful and well-informed comments that you have brought to this discussion.

David S, regarding your analogy to obesity and alcoholism. There is a myriad of research and historical data that support the argument to stop the root causes of these problems when they occur; scientific agreement is high here.

What proponents of AGW need to do is to convince those who are skeptics; that’s how classical scientific process works. It appears that many critical thinkers here have yet to be convinced, and count me as one of them. There’s your challenge, and you need to persuade your peers that name calling and mockery is not likely to be a successful long term strategy.

Jan 31, 2009 - 7:25 am 178. Howard Ino:

The gross lack of responsible reporting by Big Media begs the question… “Should the Media lose it’s constitutional protection when it in itself becomes an extension of a (any) political party?”

Churches lose their tax exemption if they become political activist… The only reason Mig Media has Constitutional protection, it for fair and honest oversight of the Political Class. Big Media has abdicated this responsibility and is no longer impartial, thereby forfeiting it’s protection!

I say let’s regulate them out of the news business and let the New Media (Internet) be the bearer of news!

Then let Big Media do what they do best… make us laugh while we grow fat sucking down Cheetos!

Jan 31, 2009 - 7:29 am 179. alberdian:

stop global warming….?!!!!

Jan 31, 2009 - 8:10 am 180. GB:

Kathy,

Because we look at facts and claims through the lens of research methodology. The question is, do you have the intellectual rigor to do the same?

Jan 31, 2009 - 8:43 am 181. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

Kathy? Are you Iowahawk’s sock puppet?

Jan 31, 2009 - 8:49 am 182. nottoobrite:

Our new President Obama has said officially that AGW is one of his top priorities, How long is 4 years?

Jan 31, 2009 - 11:43 am 183. Cybergeezer:

Stop Global Whining!
HERE!

Jan 31, 2009 - 12:20 pm 184. WR Jonas:

A very interesting article and a consensus look at the comments would lead me to conclude that the AGW fraud is over . Not so . This article says that this global fraud is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. That is not the way I see it.
I believe that the Darwinian theory of Evolution is and continues to be the biggest lie and hoax ever thrust on mankind.
Currently evolution has no standing or truth associated with its premise yet it is worshiped and promulgated as the only acceptable version of mans origin.
Sorry, AGW is only a second place fraud.But its growing rapidly and may join forces with evolutionism as the unified grand theory of the Devil. All bow down and worship please.

Jan 31, 2009 - 1:09 pm 185. Reed:

I want to thank Mr. Lewis for his excellent article.

When based on a computer model, one proposes substantial change to an existing way of “doing things” (be it something as small as modifying a production line or something as large as changing the way mankind generates energy), any respectable engineer/scientist would enthusiatically seek critical review of his model and his logic. This would include providing reviewers open access to his computer models and his reasoning. The fact that to a very large extent, AGW alarmists who call for significant changes in mankind’s energy production won’t subscribe to this principle, tells me the AGW alarmists believe or know their models won’t hold up to scrutiny. Ignoring the myriad of other arguments against AGW alarism, this single observation should be sufficient reason to ignore the dooom predicted by the AGW alarmists.

Jan 31, 2009 - 2:04 pm 186. Flubber:

I am a firm AGW skeptic, but here I’d like to respond to the comments regarding the ozone hole.
Like AGW and Hansen, the ozone hole hysteria was largely spearheaded by one man: Dr. Sherwood Rowland. Rowland built his scientific reputation and career on his CFC/ozone depletion hypothesis, and naturally fiercely defended it from any refutation. Once he was in a political position to do so, he arranged for the funding to be pulled on a nationwide chain of UV radiation monitoring sites that were producing hard data (a drop in UV radiation) that was in embarrassing contradiction to his theory. A noble scientist in pursuit of the truth, indeed. (The Heidelburg Declaration of 1993, which includes the signatures of 27 Nobel prize-winning scientists, found the evidence for the ozone depletion theories to be “lacking.”)
Now for the real facts: CFCs have yet to be detected in significant amounts at the heights necessary for ultraviolet radiation to be intense enough to break them down. Furthermore, the chemical reaction by which CFCs are alleged to break down into free chlorine molecules (it is chlorine, not CFCs, that react with ozone) has not yet been observed to take place in the upper atmosphere, and is in fact very difficult to cause even in a controlled laboratory setting.
The oceans release 600 million tons of chlorine into the atmosphere every year, and volcanoes contribute (on average) 36 million tons. “But natural chlorine gets rained out of the lower atmosphere,” you say. Well, according to figures supplied by the ozone depletion theorists themselves, the total released each year from CFCs is a minuscule 7,500 tons. In 1815, the Indonesian volcano Tambora exploded, injecting a minimum of 210 million tons of chlorine directly into the stratosphere–almost 27,000 times the alleged yearly total from CFCs. Why did this not wipe out the ozone layer completely, leading to the death of billions of people, animals and plants due to increased ultraviolet levels? There are no historical records of any such mass fatalities.
The terrifying Antarctic ozone hole? It was first detected in 1958, long before the widespread use of CFCs. Mt. Erebus, a volcano located 6 miles from McMurdo base, dumps up to 1000 tons of chlorine a day into the atmosphere. The actual data (as opposed to theories and computer models) indicates that the “hole” is a seasonal phenomena, caused by the austral polar vortex and which has been occurring naturally for some 50 million years.
Increased skin cancer in Canada? Investigation later uncovered the reason for the “outbreak”–doctors were suddenly required to report cases to a government database, which they previously had not done. This “increase in reported cases” became further “proof” of ozone depletion. Actual measurements of average UV radiation at ground level across Canada show it actually decreased slightly over the 10 years previous to the “outbreak.”
If we really want to know one way or the other, why continue trying to measure the depth of the actual ozone layer itself (a notoriously difficult and inaccurate task)? Why not just measure levels of UV at ground level and see if they’ve increased? Oh–that’s right. The saintly Dr. Rowland shut down the monitoring sites.
But let’s suppose that the environmentalists are right, and as a result of CFCs, the ozone layer will be depleted by 10% (the worst-case scenario was 8%). This would cause an overall increase in UV at the earth’s surface by about 20%. But UV radiation already doubles every 1000 miles as you move from the pole to the equator. It also increases with altitude–about 1% every 150 feet. So the overall increase from a 10% depletion would be equivalent to moving from Santa Rosa, CA to San Jose, CA–or moving up a mountain 3000 feet.
The sad truth is that there are far more holes in the ozone depletion propagandist’s claims than there are in the ozone itself.
AGW is no different, as many of the commenters above have amply proven.

Jan 31, 2009 - 4:28 pm 187. Whoaaa!!:

All I would like to say is that no one, not climatologists nor non believers can prove or predict what will happen with the earth. I don’t care how advanced your models are you cannot predict the future. But, just in case those “true believers” are right do you want to risk being wrong. Just imagine if the disaster predicted by AGW alarmists comes true? Then what? I’m not saying it will and you can sit all day and play the “what if” game but I see no problem in trying to lower our greenhouse gas emissions. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels so whats the harm in finding alternative fuel sources sooner than later? To be honest, I hope that all of you who believe that global warming is a fraud are correct because I do not want to live on a planet with the predicated outcomes of global warming.

Jan 31, 2009 - 5:12 pm 188. John McSweeney:

In a few years the carbon dioxide level will have risen and the earth cooled. The global warning people will say. “Yeah but the sunspot activity has been low” and other excuses and will recast their predictions to best fit the data as this is what they have been doing.

Meantime, money will have been spent and an “Industry” entrenched and it will be hard to eradicate the weeds.

Jan 31, 2009 - 5:30 pm 189. e:

188. John McSweeney:

Yup, and if GW doesn’t continue they’ll take credit for ’saving’ us.

I’m wondering about something else though. If you look at the CO2/temp record the CO2 shoots up and keeps increasing, then all of a sudden the temperature drops dramatically into an ice age. The CO2 follows the temperature trend several decades later. Won’t that be fun. Oh don’t worry too much, even if this is the ‘turning point’ dramatic climate changes are slow on the human scale.

Not the end of the world.

Jan 31, 2009 - 6:04 pm 190. John W - Texas:

In addition to all this discussion, I add an ancillary question:

Even if AGW were true, would all we are able to do about it make one bit of difference? All the things cited that show global warming were in motion long before Chaney was born.

These things come slowly and go even more slowly. If we took the most heroic measures possible, if we all became as the Cubans and reduced our carbon footprint, if we impoverished world civilization to reduce our production of CO2 and methane, I propose that we wouldn’t solve global warming. We wouldn’t even make a noticible difference.

Jan 31, 2009 - 7:12 pm 191. Tri Geek:

For all those who believe that man is the primary cause of Global Warming, please explain the following:

150,000 years ago, the entire Northeast of the US, all the way down to what is now Kentucky, was covered with a glacier. Prior to any human occupation, this glacier began melting, and by the time any substantial human population arrived in North America, this galcier had already receded to what is now Northern Canada. Please explain how this major global warming could have happened long before the industrial revolution?

Jan 31, 2009 - 7:43 pm 192. Reed:

Flubber 186.

Thank you for a well written critique of the CFC/ozone hysteria. I had a feeling that the CFC/ozone phenomenon was overblown by people who (a) wanted to make a name for themselves, (b) would make money if CFCs were banned, (c) have an inbred belief that man is inherently evil and is destroying rather than is an integral part of nature (the majority), or (d) are combinations of the above. You made several claims in your comment 186. If you have the time, could you site references for those claims? I would like to be better prepared when discussing the issue with the CFC/ozone alarmist crowd.

Jan 31, 2009 - 7:51 pm 193. Jim Baker:

junk science + politicians = big trouble for taxpayers

Jan 31, 2009 - 7:59 pm 194. Jeannette:

#101 ked5,
Oooh, that site looks like fun. Thanks.

Jan 31, 2009 - 10:01 pm 195. James Brown:

If I were a climate scientist and could prove, or thought I could prove, that AGW was false – that’s what I would do. It would mean instant fame and a possible Pulitzer. I would be launched to the top of my field and I would fulfill my lifelong ambition and advance the cause of science.

Any idea what that has not happened?

Could it be that AGW is not false?

Jan 31, 2009 - 10:29 pm 196. ked5:

@186 Flubber,

Thank you for your comments. Sadly, the ozone hoax belief is still going strong. My daughter just spent a SH summer in southern Chile – and Chileans were telling her to wear lots of sunblock becasue of the ozone hole.

Jan 31, 2009 - 11:27 pm 197. Virgil H. Soule:

So, wow, glaciers aren’t shrinking worldwide and the Greenland icecap isn’t thinning and six billion humans (and their billion or so automobiles) aren’t causing any problems. That’s great news. We can go on cutting down the forests and using up the world’s resources without having to worry about it. We can go on spewing stuff into the air and into the oceans without the fear that it’s going to come back and bite us. Not a problem, right?

Jan 31, 2009 - 11:36 pm 198. ked5:

@194 Jim Baker

junk science + politicians = big trouble for taxpayers

~~~~~~~~~~

That’s a formula I can agree with – even though I wish it wasn’t true. Well, maybe it needs a bit more empahsis on the “big”.

Jan 31, 2009 - 11:39 pm 199. ked5:

195. James Brown:

If I were a climate scientist and could prove, or thought I could prove, that AGW was false – that’s what I would do. It would mean instant fame and a possible Pulitzer. I would be launched to the top of my field and I would fulfill my lifelong ambition and advance the cause of science.

Any idea what that has not happened?

Could it be that AGW is not false?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow, you must not get out much. Scientists have shot many holes in AGW, and what happened to their careers, not to mentnion personal attacks, for their heresy is downright ugly.

Jan 31, 2009 - 11:42 pm 200. vivo:

Isn’t the measure of GW a rise in water level at the oceans? The melting of polar ice?

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:34 am 201. Courtnee:

They will continue to come up with made up proof that is based on assumptions and not facts. Why? Because the more they do this game the more people out there that do not use their brains well, sit back and go “yeah man” the posse called Global Warming believers grows even more and more.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:39 am 202. wildman:

vivo: The entire ice cover of the artic ocean can melt and it would have no effect on the sea level. You can do an experiment: fill a glass with ice. fill it to the brim with water and let it sit there until the ice melts. no water will slop over the brim. floating ice displaces an equal amount of water. Ice is less dense than water. that’s why it floats.

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:54 am 203. Terry Gain:

Davis S

Why do you use Peace as a euphemism for Screw You?

Peace.

TG

Feb 1, 2009 - 7:55 am 204. Michael:

When the models can replicate the “Little Ice Age” and the warming period when Greenland was actually green and all the other climate changes in the last few thousand years THEN I will put some credance in the current models. Until then the model makers are just manipulating numbers for fun and profit.

Feb 1, 2009 - 9:11 am 205. LennyB:

DS,

You say quote: only sustainable lifestyles will survive… fossil fuels cause harm… if a practice is unsustainable, by definition it will not survive… sustainability is the only option – we can get there by choice or by force… the point is that we should not be subsidizing the pollution of our planet. My personal behavior is not really relevant.

Oh yes, and you reject religion.

You frankly remind me a lot of Lenin! And I’m not talking about the one who wrote “Imagine”, although to be sure, you remind me a lot of him too…

Whether or not we can and should ultimately quit fossil fuels is an important question. But in your blind and quite incompetent advocacy of AGW in which you repeatedly cite “facts on the ground” (not sure what your definition of the term “fact” is but I’m betting it fairly liberal, pun intended), you are very much not contributing to the solution. Why? Because only sustainable arguments will survive. In peddling an unsustainable argument as a prescription for what you believe to be societal ill, you are damaging legitimate science and hurting us all very much. Stop peeing in our pool, as it were. Not that you care, because your agenda is actually not to protect humanity. This may surprise you, but your real goal — the one you may not even admit to yourself — is to control the masses with your own prescription for better living (possibly also to eradicate religion since you obviously over-value your own, and therefore human, intellect). That is not a scientific goal. It’s a social one, and there’s nothing new about it, the world has seen it many times over, particularly in Latin America in the last hundred years or so.

Fortunately for the rest of us and for humanity in general, most folks are smarter than you give them credit for, and your ilk are neither intellectually skilled enough to make your arguments sustainable, nor will you ever actually have the nerve to consolidate and start killing people to bring about revolution. So I wanted you to know that your poison is in the end irrelevant. Thanks!

p.s. have you thought about becoming a revisionist Hollywood scriptwriter? That might best help you in achieving your goals.

Feb 1, 2009 - 9:17 am 206. liberty4usa:

Remember how the world was flat?
How the sun orbited the Earth?
The age of Discovery changed all that
but now we have entered the Age of Pretending!
http://thenma.org/blogs//index.php/libertyforusa/2009/01/27/the-age-of-pretending

Once again our world has length and width,
and other worlds orbit ours.
This is what happens when the lsd culture “grows up”!

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:41 am 207. GB:

liberty4usa:

This is what happens when the lsd culture “grows up”!

When did that happen?

Feb 1, 2009 - 12:09 pm 208. momof3:

Wasn’t there no polar ice at all during most of the dinosaur ages? Yet, the world wasn’t covered with water? And then, didn’t the world cool down and we have ice ages? And didn’t it warm up in between them? But now, all of a sudden, the climate is supposed to be static because it’s more convenient for us? Nonsense, all of it.

Volcanoes have emitted more carbon than we have, yet WE”RE the reason the earth is warming? our cars? Again-nonsense.

Feb 1, 2009 - 12:31 pm 209. GB:

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the history of eco-pessimism in affluent societies here:

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101506.html

He always ends with a zinger:

“From Hesiod or Spengler, gloomy predictions usually tell us far more about the author than they reflect an empirical assessment of the actual conditions of contemporary societies. Pessimism apparently fulfills a need in affluent, but otherwise guilty or troubled Westerners to feel bad about their privileges without ever having to give them up. And that explains why more than anything authors write that we are doomed by too many people, too much heat, and too much consumption — and why so many of us apparently enjoy reading of our misery to come.”

Feb 1, 2009 - 1:32 pm 210. Self-hating Boomer:

If I were a climate scientist and could prove, or thought I could prove, that AGW was false – that’s what I would do. It would mean instant fame and a possible Pulitzer.

I don’t know if that was supposed to be a joke, but if not, it was unintentionally funny. Yes, it’s the aspiration of every journalist to be the world’s biggest, bestest expert on science.

Unfortunately, if you’re a scientist, you’re more likely to want a Nobel. And not one of those cheap, plastic “peace” prizes that they hand out in boxes of Cracker Jacks to every loser and cretin from Gore to Arafat.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:26 pm 211. Joe:

The IR absorbing properties of CO2 have been known since the 1800s. Are you seriously this ill informed?

This is simply false. There was a theory in the 19th century that the atmosphere was just like a greenhouse and that greenhouses were hot because of CO2. However, in the last 19th century, this was disproved using fairly simple experiments. CO2 simply does not have the properties ascribed to it. If it did, we could create small glass boxes filled with CO2 and used them to generate energy.

An even more damning aspect of the AGW theories is that atmospheric concentration of CO2 was measured many times from the early 19th century on. Turns out that the concentration wasn’t much lower than today. Ice core proxy measurements didn’t support this so actual observations were rejected in favor of reconstructed measurements (how ice core measurements are manipulated is so bogus it’s amazing those scientists have any credibility.)

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:47 pm 212. Joe:

So, wow, glaciers aren’t shrinking worldwide and the Greenland icecap isn’t thinning

Glaciers aren’t shrinking worldwide. Some are, some are growing. (Some that are shrinking are revealing human settlements dated more recent than the last ice age.)

The Greenland icecap isn’t, in fact, thinning; quite the opposite.

Feb 1, 2009 - 4:50 pm 213. Francis A. LeBlanc:

I find it delightful how this article reads very similarly to something a creationist might have written to argue against evolution.

Feb 1, 2009 - 5:02 pm 214. David S:

@205. LennyB:

It is not a question of “whether or not we can and should … quit fossil fuels”. We don’t have a choice in the matter, because the resource is finite. I cite facts on the ground because that is how science works. The argument is quite sustainable – the evidence has been growing stronger every day.

My agenda is to prevent humanity from destroying itself. It is not about better living – it is about living, period. I don’t care what your private religious beliefs are. Just don’t make them public policy. You are correct that preventing humanity from destroying itself is not a scientific goal. That’s because science is independent. We can use it to think of creative ways to kill each other, or we can use it for the betterment of our mutual living conditions. Or both at the same time. Preserving humanity is a social goal – the most basic one necessary for society to continue.

You are the one who thinks that killing people is the way to revolution. I was just giving you a heads up that nature will take its course. If my “ilk” are not able to sustain our arguments in the short term, the long term consequences will only be that much more tragic. Living in denial is great until you can’t. That’s why your argument is not sustainable. You don’t offer any thoughtful response to the evidence that we are poisoning our planet.

The poison is coming from our tailpipes, not my windpipe.

Peace.

DS

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:06 pm 215. David S:

@203. Terry Gain:

Why do you use Peace as a euphemism for Screw You?

Peace.

TG

I don’t. Do you?

Peace.

DS

Feb 1, 2009 - 6:08 pm 216. daddy dave:

Francis you wrote:
“I find it delightful how this article reads very similarly to something a creationist might have written to argue against evolution.”

Personally, I find it delightful how a kooky, politically motivated pseudo-science is defended not by logic or evidence, but by attacking anyone who questions it. That’s what you’re doing, by linking skeptics to creationists.

I am a firm believer in evolution, and I can tell you that there is no similarity between creationism and AGW skepticism.

There is, however, a huge similarity between “climate science” and astrology.

Feb 1, 2009 - 8:50 pm 217. beejay:

Agrrrr the No-bale Prize? How interesting that Gore gets it for lying and Ahtisari gets it for the Kosovo Institutionalized Ethnic Cleansing…Not noble at all any more I think…
Boris change your name since your brain cannot be changed I am sure…lol

Feb 1, 2009 - 9:25 pm 218. djaces:

Boris:

Finally had a chance to check your feedback reference and I was not overly impressed. Limited myself to the abstract, because after reading it I was not inclined to pop for $9 for the whole enchilada. They start by claiming a 0.6 C climb in temp from 03 to 08 which leads me to believe they were working with Hansen’s dubious dataset. They then describe how relative humidity went up in some places and went down in others, but the global average RH remained essentially stable and proceed to deduce a strong feedback between CO2 and humidity. Not very compelling logic in my book, especially given that the sat data all show a negative trend in the time period of their study. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend

Feb 1, 2009 - 11:47 pm 219. djaces:

Boris:

Went back and read the abstract again and evidently they are only claiming a feedback between surface temps and RH, which is still not supportive of AGW unless you are willing to assign all changes in surface temp to CO2.

Feb 2, 2009 - 12:17 am 220. vivo:

202. wildman:

Now do this experiment:

Fill a glass with ice.
Fill an identical glass with water.
Pour the ice on the water glass. Water is displaced (rising level).

The Artic ice in not IN the water to begin with. Have you seen those films where the huge chunks fall IN the water? Guess what happens.

Feb 2, 2009 - 1:36 am 221. Boris:

There was a theory in the 19th century that the atmosphere was just like a greenhouse and that greenhouses were hot because of CO2.

Wrong. Look up Svante Arrhenius’ original paper.

Finally had a chance to check your feedback reference and I was not overly impressed. Limited myself to the abstract, because after reading it I was not inclined to pop for $9 for the whole enchilada. They start by claiming a 0.6 C climb in temp from 03 to 08 which leads me to believe they were working with Hansen’s dubious dataset. They then describe how relative humidity went up in some places and went down in others, but the global average RH remained essentially stable and proceed to deduce a strong feedback between CO2 and humidity. Not very compelling logic in my book

Well, you should actually read the paper–or at least read the abstract more carefully. They state the temperature varied by 0.6oC. There has been an increase in absolute humidity over the long term trend, so your link is simply cherry picking.

they are only claiming a feedback between surface temps and RH, which is still not supportive of AGW unless you are willing to assign all changes in surface temp to CO2.

And that’s the point of a feedback–if CO2 is raising the surface temperature, then WV will amplify the effect. We know that CO2 is raising the surface temperature because it is a known greenhouse gas.

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:52 am 222. wildman:

vivo. The artic ocean is covered in ice. this ice is floating on water. You can look this up. you should try this experiment fill glass with ice, add 1 part vermouth, 3 parts vodka, stir and enjoy

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:10 am 223. e:

220. vivo:The Artic ice in not IN the water to begin with. Have you seen those films where the huge chunks fall IN the water? Guess what happens.

Floating sea ice is still floating even if its piled on top of other ice that IS in the water. What happens when a fat man gets in a boat? The boat floats lower by the same displacement the fat man would have if he were in the water. When he gets back out the boat floats back up to its original position.

No Greenland ice and about half the Antarctic ice sits on top of land. But if there is sea under the ice, it floats.

Feb 2, 2009 - 6:27 am 224. e:

223 e:
Its supposed to be “Now Greenland ice” not “No Greenland ice”

Feb 2, 2009 - 7:13 am 225. Cybergeezer:

Has Gas Bag Gore ever consulted Punxsutawney Phil for his view of AGW?

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:15 am 226. David S:

@216

Care to elaborate on the “huge similarity between “climate science” and astrology”?

It seems like astronomy would be a better analog.

Peace.

DS

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:00 am 227. Dr. James:

What I find interesting about the alarmists is the simple mathematics don’t hold based on the real facts. For example, humans are contributing 3% of all CO2 released each year and CO3 is 38/100,000ths of the atmosphere. I have asked alarmists to rectify and the best they can come up with is the “natural” released CO2 is absorbed. Are huge volcanoes “natural” released CO2? It’s just simply ridiculous to make such a lame assumption by the alarmists. I confronted alarmists about how much CO2 would have to be pumped, over double what we have now, over a 5 year period to change the 38/100,000ths of CO2 per atmospheric molecules to change to 39. Again, no clear answer. I mentioned the Armagh Observatory data which has accurate temp data back to the late 1700s and shows no significant planetary warming. This too is just tossed aside by the alarmists. So the question becomes why. In this article you see some reasons for it but one primary reason is overlooked and that is HUGE amounts of money garnered by alarmist researchers. Ask Dr. Hansen how much he has made directly from his alarmism. Everyone wants a cleaner environment but environmentalism has become akin to a religion and a religion that is not very tolerant of anyone who doesn’t accept said religion.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:04 am 228. David S:

@227. Dr. James:

Cherry-picking your data and refusing to look at the actual contributions of human activity to CO2 in the atmosphere won’t help you understand the problem.

Armagh Observatory provides data for one point on the surface of the globe. No conclusions whatsoever about global warming can be made on this basis. Observations from satellites and ground observations agree that mean global temperature is rising.

CO2 levels are also clearly changing due to human activity, although natural processes can absorb some of the excess. Your simplistic calculations fail to account for the complexity of the planet’s carbon cycles.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638

If everyone wants a cleaner environment, why is it so difficult to reduce our emissions?

Peace.

DS

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:33 am 229. tomw:

191. Tri Geek:

For all those who believe that man is the primary cause of Global Warming, please explain the following:

150,000 years ago, the entire Northeast of the US, all the way down to what is now Kentucky, was covered with a glacier. Prior to any human occupation, this glacier began melting, and by the time any substantial human population arrived in North America, this galcier had already receded to what is now Northern Canada. Please explain how this major global warming could have happened long before the industrial revolution?
…..

Dang those time travelers! Told them to not take their SUVs with them! Just like those two up there on Mars, warming their climate so’s the ice caps melt.

If you are using an LCD monitor to read this article, consider if it is about 1000 pixels on a side, human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is about 3 pixels.

Why is it that all of the models ignore the greenhouse contribution of H2O, the most prevalent of all GHGs, with a much wider absorptive spectrum? Why do they all ignore the albedo effect of cloud cover?
tomw

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:46 am 230. Sam:

#195 James Brown:

“If I were a climate scientist and could prove, or thought I could prove, that AGW was false – that’s what I would do. It would mean instant fame and a possible Pulitzer. I would be launched to the top of my field and I would fulfill my lifelong ambition and advance the cause of science.

Any idea what that has not happened?

Could it be that AGW is not false?”

Response: It’s pretty hard to prove something is false when the claim is made for events 100 years into the future. When it is pointed out to true-believing warmers that there has been no warming for a decade they claim that natural forces are disguising the warming which will begin again in the next ……. (you pick ‘em)number of years. Nothing we can say will dissuay the believers from their true faith.

For those such as DS who insist on using the Precautionary Principle as their rationale for taking action because what do we have to lose……?

How about you answer my question? We know that CO2 levels are almost as low as they’ve been for at least 3 million years (when earth entered the Ice Age cycle where we have 100k years of Ice Age and 12-20K years of interglacial. We know that CO2 is a primary agent in the photosynthesis process key to sustaining life on this planet (and carbon-based life at that) and that plant growth will go into stasis below 200ppm.

Using your same logic, then how do we know that reducing current levels of CO2 might not unintentionally generate catastrophe by lowering the volume of plant life on the planet thereby limiting its ability both to provide oxygen for us and food for the plants and animals we depend on for survival. Mankind’s production of CO2 may be nature’s response to the naturally diminishing volumes of CO2 that have been sequestered over the eons (you know, we are part of nature even if that is very disturbing to you)and that we are restoring to the biosphere drastically needed supplies of this critical ingredient.

How do you know that taking action isn’t dramatically more dangerous than taking no action.

What you warmers want is some rationale to add meaning to your self-perceived emptiness. You’ve turned away from traditional religion and are now using this new religion to give some sense of meaning to your vapid lives. You feel so much superior to the rest of us because you care more than the rest of us who just want to destroy clean air and clean water. Everyone knows we have our own private supplies locked up where only we can get to them.

Feb 2, 2009 - 1:21 pm 231. Reed Coray:

I agree with Sam (#195). In fact, I submit an open questioon to all Global Warming Alarmists:

Isn’t it logical to take action against Global Warning (GW) only if the following four conditions are met?

(1) GW is in fact occurring. If GW is just so much “hot air” (pun intended), then GW is a nonissue–or more correctly, a nonexistent issue.

(2) In the aggregate GW is harmful to mankind. I know in this age of political correctness, it’s deplorable to express little or no concern for the world’s plants and animals; but I do, at least when compared to my concern for mankind. For example, if mankind had the power to change the environment in a way that benefited all mankind but resulted in the extinction of polar bears, I’d say go for it. After all, aren’t we doing something similar by attempting to eradicate the smallpox virus from the face of the earth? Environmentalists can’t in good conscience make the claim: “We can’t allow polar bears to become extinct because (a) it’s immoral for man to abet the extinction of a life form, and (b) the extinction of the polar bear will hurt the environment,” unless they are willing to make a similar claim about the smallpox virus. The smallpox virus is a living organism too; and by eradicating smallpox the number of the worst polluter (humans, according to many environmentalists) on the face of the earth will increase. Thus, by eradicating smallpox we are destroying a life form and making a huge impact to the environment. The main difference I see between smallpox and polar bears is that young polar bears are cute; and hence telling children that the number of polar bears is decreasing brings tears of sadness not tears of joy as would happen if we tell them smallpox is becoming extinct. Once full grown, polar bears can be very dangerous. None of my friends is a polar bear, and I don’t really care what happens to them (polar bears)–good or bad. I’m not looking to harm them, but I also don’t want to spend much effort to ensure they are around when our sun becomes a red giant. So, if in the aggregate GW is beneficial to man (and I can think of at least one possible reason why it might be–a warmer climate might allow for increased production of foodstuff), then I want more, not less, GW.

(3) There is something we can do about GW. Even if (a) GW is occurring, and (b) in the aggregate it is harmful to mankind, I’m not going to worry about it if we can’t do anything about it. Just like I don’t lose sleep over the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera might erupt like it has in the past. I will listen to discussions about how to adapt to GW; but if we can’t affect it, why listen to arguments on how to stop it?

(4) What we do about GW is less harmful to mankind than GW itself. Even if (a) GW is occurring, (b) in the aggregate it is harmful to mankind, and (c) there is something we can do about it, before we take action I want to be sure that the action we take doesn’t cause more harm to mankind than allowing GW to proceed unhindered. Let’s postulate (1), (2), and (3) above are true, and throw in for good measure that man’s industrial activity is the major contributor to GW. One way to solve the problem, at least temporarily, would be to liquidate 99% of all humans now living on the earth. If I’m in the 1% who are allowed to live, it’s unlikely but conceivable that I’d go along with such a solution; but if I’m in the 99% who get sacrificed to the altar of Al Gore, then I’d just as soon ignore GW and let the chips fall where they may.

When I hear GW discussed in the main-stream media, I’m pretty sure it’s just so much “feelsuperiorism” in the sense that those who advocate doing something about GW can feel superior to us skeptics because they’re onboard the glory train to save the world by stopping the scourge of GW and we’re tearing up the tracks in front of them. The possibility that (a) the GW alarmist train doesn’t have an engine or (b) the light at the end of the tunnel is another train, not the tunnel exit, doesn’t appear to have entered the minds of GW alarmists. As such, I have a tendency to ignore the main-stream media’s propaganda about GW, and consequently have heard only a miniscule fraction of their discussion. However, in the portion I have heard, the four conditions above have never been discussed collectively, much less proven.

My father often related to me what his father told him: “Son, the world is full of people who know things that aren’t true.” It’s my perception that Al Gore, the main-stream media, and much of the western world “know GW is here, know it is harmful, and know that we can do something about it.” In my opinion, such knowledge is an illustration of my grandfather’s claim.

BTW–I am an agnostic. So those of you who want to dismiss my skepticism because it is just so much Christian orthodoxy, try again.

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:13 pm 232. Reed Coray:

Oops. Sam’s Comment was 230 not 195.

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:14 pm 233. David S:

@230. Sam:

When it is pointed out to true-believing warmers that there has been no warming for a decade they claim that natural forces are disguising the warming which will begin again in the next ……. (you pick ‘em)number of years. Nothing we can say will dissuay the believers from their true faith.

The problem with your argument is that there has been warming, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.

We know that CO2 levels are almost as low as they’ve been for at least 3 million years

You don’t cite your sources, and mine disagree. CO2 levels are higher now than they have been at any time in the past 650,000 years.

Mankind’s production of CO2 may be nature’s response to the naturally diminishing volumes of CO2 that have been sequestered over the eons

Or it may be our natural method of causing our own extinction. Apparently that doesn’t worry you.

You’ve turned away from traditional religion and are now using this new religion to give some sense of meaning to your vapid lives. You feel so much superior to the rest of us because you care more than the rest of us who just want to destroy clean air and clean water.

This is not about religion. Get off your holier-than-thou horse and look around. Fossil fuels cause massive degradation of our water and atmosphere. AGW is just one more good reason to move to clean alternatives. Science is not about giving meaning to vapid lives, it is about understanding the world, which helps us make informed decisions. If you prefer to use some “traditional religion” to understand the world, that is your right, but I don’t have to stand by quietly while you dream of armageddon.

Peace.

DS

Feb 2, 2009 - 2:21 pm 234. Reed Coray:

David S. #233

You accuse traditional religionists of dreaming of armageddon. But isn’t the whoe premise of AGW a form of armageddon?

Feb 2, 2009 - 4:31 pm 235. David S:

@234. Reed Coray:

There is a difference. The religious folks welcome the end of the world, and I (along with the scientific community of the planet) think it would be wise to take preventive action.

Human beings have achieved sufficient development to be a direct threat to our own survival as a species. Our demise is not something we should hasten, in my opinion.

Peace.

DS

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:07 pm 236. Sam:

Fossil fuels have been a blessing to humanity. You don’t know what you’re talking about. If people weren’t using these efficient fuels, they would be back to burning coal, wood, dung, field stalks, and anything that they could scavange that would burn just to heat their homes and cook their food.

The cheap energy that oil and coal have provided have enabled us to reach undreamt of levels of prosperity for ever-increasing numbers of people on the planet. It is people like you and other earth worshippers that are pursuing policies that have already killed untold numbers of people. You are very dangerous. Who are you to plot to keep billions of people around the earth from having cheap power and electricity needed to clean their water and keep their indoor air clean.

Until you can demonstrate empirical proof that CO2 has any dangerous impact on temperatures (and I’m referring to any atmospheric CO2 let alone human-generated CO2) then you are acting on nothing more than your religious belief and you want to use government to force your belief on everyone else because you are so sure you are right. You don’t have any right to do this and ever-growing numbers of us are going to stop you from pushing this mass-hysteria on all of us.

Feb 2, 2009 - 5:20 pm 237. David S:

@236. Sam:

Fossil fuels are a ‘blessing’, but they are a mixed one. They are not superior to wood, dung, field stalks and other bio-fuels in terms of carbon cycles. What you are missing is that the next technology is here – specifically battery and solar technology.

The cheap energy that oil and coal provide comes at a much higher cost in environmental damage, apart from the CO2 emitted. On the whole this will make the world poorer. Continued reliance on fossil fuel sources retards development of alternatives that are cleaner, cheaper and more efficient in the long term. Fossil fuels will slowly run out and we will need to switch eventually.

The masses in China do not have land lines. They have mobile phones. It’s called a quantum leap.

As we develop clean technology, we enable billions around the world to have cheap power, electricity to clean their water, and we can keep indoor and outdoor air cleaner. Why make the 3rd world follow our unsustainable path to growth? Why not learn from our mistakes and enable more rapid improvements? Does it really make sense to build more coal-fired power plants when we can build clean power generation capacity instead?

The only reason that oil and coal are cheap is because we don’t put a value on the quality of our air, our soil, and our water. If we paid the true costs of fossil fuels, it would be clear that solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower are much more cost effective.

Peace.

DS

Feb 2, 2009 - 9:23 pm 238. Linda Mae:

Hansen completed his “research” in 1988 and then began to sell it. He was given $750,000 by a George Soros fund and $250,000 from John Kerry’s wife’s fund – both for legal and PR issues. Gore has been making mucho on this. You must remember this: Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize in Peace – awarded by a panel of 5 judges – avowed greenies and socialists – NOT the Nobel Prize in Science. I wonder why. To date there are 31,072 signatures on a site which explains the poor science used by Hansen in 1988. Plus to date there are 650 other scientists who have become vocal to explain that there is no scientific evidence that man has created global warming. Plus the President of the Czech republic has a book, Markel from Germany and the Minister of Ireland have all concluded there is no such thing. You may also find tons of papers and comments made by scientists all over the world who claim there is no science to support the existence of man make global warming. In fact, we began a mini ice age in 1998 and the ice has gone back to 1979 reports in Antarctica plus the Arctic Circle is doing well. The first time these areas were studied was in 1979 so that is the benchmark we use. So, we have Gore and Hansen using 1988 science on one side and 31,8000 on the other side debunking the myth. Will that stop our being taxed? We can only hope. It’s like playing telephone tag. Those who support GW are easily debunked when you ask them a specific question about the methodology used. Or new science. 2 to 31,800. I know which side I’ll support.

Feb 2, 2009 - 10:50 pm 239. dave:

David S: “Care to elaborate on the “huge similarity between “climate science” and astrology”?”

Sure.
1) They always start with the premise that the theory is right. e.g., your comments about taking preventative action. It’s pretty rare that you’ll have an intelligent debate about the core evidence underpinning the theory.

2) evolution has a vast array of independent pieces of evidence supporting it. By contrast, climate science has a lot of “data points,” but they’re all part of the same dataset, and therefore, really, collectively constitute a single piece of evidence.
Similarly, astrology relies on a lot of data points but a single piece of evidence (the apparent – but illusory – correlation between personality and star sign)

3) the evidence was plausible at one point in history, for example when we thought that the ice core data showed that CO2 preceded temperature rises, and when the hockey stick was considered sound.
Similarly, astrology was plausible, historically, before psychology came of age and we found out that it was a cognitive ‘trick of the light’.

Feb 3, 2009 - 3:22 am 240. David S:

@239. dave:

1) Your first assertion is patently false. The hypothesis of AGW has been repeatedly confirmed by observation. My comments on preventive action follow thirty years of research. I’m happy to have an intelligent debate about the core evidence.

2) Your assertion that AGW has only one dataset makes no sense. Independent observations from around the world, of surface temperature, ocean temperature, and atmospheric composition all point to the same conclusion.

3) The evidence is still quite reliable, and the hypothesis still fits all available data. We know that CO2 levels now are higher than they have been in hundreds of thousands of years.

Really, you need to offer evidence if you are going to make this kind of assertion. Your say so won’t cut it.

Peace.

DS

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:51 am 241. Sam:

Please try to articulate what this evidence is that shows any causal impact of CO2 on temperature? Your constant repetition of the claim does not constitute evidence.

Do you realize how foolish it is to say that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been in 650K years and to act like that has some value or means anything? On a planet that is 4.5 billion years old, 650K amounts to .014% of the total geological time available. The norm for CO2 volumes are 5-10 times what they are now.

CO2 changes follow temperature changes and therefore cannot be their cause.
CO2 continues an almost linear increase in atmospheric volume while temperatures have been flat or falling for a decade.
While CO2 has been increasing, only 2 (1980s and 1990s) out of the last 7 decades have shown warming while 5 decades(1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 2000s)have shown cooling.
CO2 only has 3 small absorption bands for IR and these overlap with H20 which overwhelms the capacity of CO2. These bands of IR are already close to saturation so additional CO2 has an ever-dwindling capacity to absorb heat.
Man’s contribution to annual CO2 is a paltry 3% compared to the 97% arising from natural sources.

Nothing you are trying to promote makes any sense. It is truly comical that warmers call climate realists deniers when it is they who refuse to engage in critical thinking.

AGW doesn’t pass the smell test. If you have actual proof please enlighten us. But your repetition of claims does not suffice.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:35 am 242. Pat J:

Some would say Christianity is a bigger fraud than AGW.

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:32 am 243. tanstaafl:

“DS” would like to deny that any reference to a Creator/judeo christian philosophy underlies the formation of this country.

He was (hopefully) horrified when the Presidential Oath of office ended on “so help me God” (as it always does, the Oath spelled out in the Constitution) and all those other references to prayer and a higher Being during the inaugural.

I give you this background because DS is one of those individuals who has adopted the “religion of global warmism” as a substitute belief structure. (For the record, Global Warmism also serves as an alternate belief structure for failed Communism.)

This belief structure makes certain dissemblers and failed politicians (cf. Al Gore) wealthy and provides an avenue to some semblance of relevance & control in their bloated lives.

No sh!t sherlock

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:46 am 244. Joe:

I enjoy this website very much. But every now and then a crazy note such as this one slips by. This article fails miserably to make its point by pointing to the logic traps that science can stumble with. However, it does not (and could not) discredit the climate models, the facts such as big chunks of polar ice breaking apart or glaciers receding, or the fact that ocean levels have risen…. PM is a great site… but when it publishes rubbish like this, it sounds like a site for cookoos

Feb 3, 2009 - 1:45 pm 245. dave:

David S
1) “The hypothesis of AGW has been repeatedly confirmed by observation.”

No. That’s like saying “dark matter has been repeatedly confirmed by observation.” All you can say is that the same phenomena that are attributed to AGW have been repeatedly observed. And I repeat: getting AGW supporters to tell you what the evidence is that C02 warms the atmosphere is pretty hard to do.

2) The dataset I’m referring to is the temperature record. I say this because AGW’ers are under the illusion that they have “lots of evidence,” but to me that phrase implies numerous independent evidence vectors. That’s not the case with global warming theory.

3) “The evidence is still quite reliable, and the hypothesis still fits all available data.”

Those two statements are true, but your logical two-step made me smile. To wit: The evidence for God is reliable (the existence of intelligent life is a “reliable” data point), and the hypothesis fits all the available data (and all concievable data). Similarly for astrology, existence of ghosts, etc. Spot the logical error in this, and you’ll see the error that you also made.

Feb 3, 2009 - 2:24 pm 246. Northstar:

#237 David S

“Alternative fuels”, sound good in a conversation but look at them in practicality.

1. Cook your dinner with wood like a large part of Africa and South America still do. You light up a few logs, burn off half of the “resouce” to get the temperature right, cook, and then let the rest burn out. Efficency, about 5% at best.

2. Heat your house with stalks. Spend huge amounts of energy getting the stalks to your house, drag tons of material into the house, light the fast burning material, warm the house, open the doors and windows to let excess heat escape, and then drag out all the cinders to pollute the neighborhood.

A hundred years ago oil and natural gas were herolded as the savior of mankind from all the carbon pollutants. The use of these “new alternative fuels” that could be trurned on and off as needed saved us from our distruction of the enviorment

Also, please check your souce on the “masses of Chinese” with cell phones. The latest info I’ve seen shows 80%+ have no phones at all, and over half of the country still cooks and heats with open fires not fueled by either coal or oil.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:35 pm 247. LennyB:

David S — sorry for not responding sooner, I actually work for a living.

I find it a shocking admission on your part that “we don’t have choice in the matter, because the resource is finite” is your position on fossil fuels. I happen to agree with that and it’s the one thing you’ve said that makes sense. But that’s just my point, you are perpetuating this fraudulent claim that fossil fuels are destroying the earth (note: not that they are simply not good, but that they are actively destroying it) because it is the agenda that is important to you, a la Lenin. You’ve just now selected multiple arguments to support your agenda, and not the facts. I expect that discussing the environment with you is like discussing war with a pacifist.

“My agenda is to prevent humanity from destroying itself.” You forgot: “in the way that I prescribe for others for that is my modus operandi”. “I don’t care what your private religious beliefs are. Just don’t make them public policy.” WTF? What’s my religion got to do with it? And what if I have no religion, but perceive all the failings of religion in the foolish and bastardized “science” that you represent? That would make your statement pretty ironic, no?

“The betterment of our mutual living conditions. Or both at the same time. Preserving humanity is a social goal – the most basic one necessary for society to continue.” You are just as I diagnosed — a communalist. Your religion is that we are all part of the same team, and that team requires group-think, collectivism, and all the poison engendered by socialist thinking.

“You are the one who thinks that killing people is the way to revolution.” I disagree. But I am heartened that you do not think so either, because that is the first thing I’ve heard you say that separates you from Lenin, Che, etc. etc.

“Living in denial is great until you can’t. That’s why your argument is not sustainable. You don’t offer any thoughtful response to the evidence that we are poisoning our planet.” I have not made an argument, as you will note if you carefully read my response. Other than that you are a socialist, closet or otherwise. If I did I’d certainly not go looking for the science to support it, but rather, would allow the science to direct me to the right argument. You should try that some time, it’s pretty liberating when you decided that actually being right is not mere validation of one’s personal intellect — actually being right is a thrill that is its own reward, relative to nothing and nobody. That should appeal to your egalitarian sensibilities, shouldn’t it?

“The poison is coming from our tailpipes, not my windpipe.” Socialism is poison. CO is pollution. That is the difference you do not seem to understand.

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:27 pm 248. dave:

Joe:

“the fact that ocean levels have risen”

Wrong.
Well, okay yes they’ve risen over the past couple of decades, at the astounding rate of 1 mm per year (for non-scientists like you Joe, that’s around 1 twentieth of an inch a year). If that continues, New York will be flooded in about 2000 years, give or take a century either side.

Rising oceans pose no threat. There is no evidence to suggest that they are rising significantly.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:29 pm 249. David S:

@242 – Good point!

@243 – “So help me God” is not part of the oath. What Constitution are you using?

@245 – Intelligent life is not a data point of evidence in support of God. There are temperature observations as well as ice core samples. Global warming is not in dispute. There is a lot more to AGW than CO2, but even the AGW deniers acknowledge global warming is real.

@246 – I was not advocating plants as fuel, although that does create a carbon offset in the living plants, unlike fossil fuels. In reality, solar, wind, geothermal and hydro are more than we need. A hundred years ago we made a radical change in our energy habits, moving from sustainable vegetable fuels to fossil fuels. It is time to move to the next generation of fuel. Fuel that does not degrade our environment or create global instability.

For the masses of Chinese, a casual search turned up this quote from CNET, May 31, 2007:

Overall, there are 500 million active cell accounts in China, and the number will grow to around 784 million by 2011, according to BDA. The firm predicts that 239 million people will access the Internet by cell phone in 2011.
“It has begun to spread to rural China,” Dean added, with around 63 percent of China Mobile’s new customers coming from rural areas. When Dean first moved to China in 1994, there were 200,000 subscribers total in the country.

Granted, some people have multiple accounts. But it seems unlikely that every phone would have four.

Peace.

DS

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:35 pm 250. David S:

@247. LennyB:

This may surprise you, but your real goal — the one you may not even admit to yourself — is to control the masses with your own prescription for better living

I just glanced back at your argument regarding my “real goal”, and I realized that you did a very good job of describing the efforts of the Oil and Auto companies to influence policy to their own benefit.

I have no interest in controlling the masses – however, when my tax dollars serve to perpetuate an energy policy that impoverishes our country and our planet, I have the right and obligation to make my objections known.

Arguing that I am a socialist does not help your cause – I freely admit that I believe in some amount of socialism.

If you support public parks, roads, schools, police, fire, wastewater, etc, then you, too, are a socialist. Welcome comrade!

Peace.

DS

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:47 pm 251. vivo:

222. wildman:

“The artic ocean is covered in ice. this ice is floating on water. You can look this up. you should try this experiment fill glass with ice, add 1 part vermouth, 3 parts vodka, stir and enjoy”

Heey! That was a damn good experiment!

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:13 pm 252. vivo:

222. wildman:

“The artic ocean is covered in ice. this ice is floating on water.”

223. e:

“Floating sea ice is still floating even if its piled on top of other ice that IS in the water. . . . No Greenland ice and about half the Antarctic ice sits on top of land. But if there is sea under the ice, it floats.”

I agree, if the ice is floating, melting won’t change the sea level. Thanks for the insight. So then, why has the sea level been rising?

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:26 pm 253. dave:

David S @249
“Intelligent life is not a data point of evidence in support of God”
I agree, but this shows that you completely missed the point. According to Creationists life is evidence in support of God. Similarly, according to Green Armageddonists (like you), modest rises in temperature over the past century are evidence that humans are wrecking the environment.

“Global warming is not in dispute.”
You’re deliberately using shifting definitions. The modest historical rise in temeperature is not in dispute.
But that’s a trivial definition of global warming.
However, “Global Warming,” the theory that industrialised society is causing the atmosphere to warm to dangerous levels, is in dispute.

“Arguing that I am a socialist does not help your cause – I freely admit that I believe in some amount of socialism.”

Yes it does, because the Green Solution (TM) is remarkably similar to Socialism. Therefore, part of dismantling this nonsense is to show that there is a political agenda behind the scientific one.

“If you support public parks, roads, schools, police, fire, wastewater, etc, then you, too, are a socialist. Welcome comrade!”

not true, but this is beside the point. Whether socialism is good or bad is irrelevant to whether it has grafted it on to modern-day environmentalism. But good luck convincing the local denizens of PJ of the wonders of socialism!

peace

David

Feb 4, 2009 - 3:01 am 254. dave:

one other thing, Dave S…

Since you’re a socialist, AGW supports your world view (capitalism is destroying the planet).
You are motivated to want to believe the AGW perspective. This is a problem if you want to position yourself as dispassionate and objective, because you’re not.
And yes, I am aware the the argument can be reversed.

by the way, in the news: Hansen’s supervisor at NASA is a skeptic. Did you catch that one Dave S? Did you notice that like many scientists, he only “came out” as a skeptic when he retired? Why would that be, in a free-flowing intellectual environment where everyone can speak their minds?
(rhetorical question alert)

Feb 4, 2009 - 4:36 am 255. tanstaafl:

You’re correct, DS, the phrase “so help me God” does not appear in the formal Oath in the Constitution.

Your Messiah, however, spoke it for both his Oaths, the one with his hand on Lincoln’s Bible and one re-administered by the Chief Justice in the Oval Office. Most Presidents have included the phrase, and (according to the infamous wikipedia) all Presidents since FDR.

Horrifying to you, I hope, Rick Warren’s invocation and James Lowery’s closing benediction.

I suggest to all who suggest that oil is ruining the planet that they immediately cease & desist: driving, using most all personal and home products, using their home computers and, most importantly, wearing clothes.

I think James Hansen might be particularly odious since he has what all socialists pay particularly homage to, “credentials”. Maybe we’ll learn he’s got a piece of AlGore’s carbon credit scheme. Or something.

Science has, indeed, lost credibility through this controversy and money has played way too large a role in some of the recent conclusions confirming the absolute fact of AGW.

Computer models do not and cannot replicate nature, especially when they’re programmed with restrictive parameters that might help reach a “desired” conclusion.

Not enough people pay enough mind to the history of natural climate cycles and compare and contrast that with the thesis of AGW.

Feb 4, 2009 - 9:06 am 256. David S:

@253. dave:

According to Creationists life is evidence in support of God. Similarly, according to Green Armageddonists (like you), modest rises in temperature over the past century are evidence that humans are wrecking the environment.

You ignore the fact that AGW studies an observable and testable hypothesis. The Creationist hypothesis is not testable.

The modest historical rise in temeperature is not in dispute.
But that’s a trivial definition of global warming.
However, “Global Warming,” the theory that industrialised society is causing the atmosphere to warm to dangerous levels, is in dispute.

I am glad you are informed enough to realize that temperatures are rising. AGW is a very good fit for the data. Do you have an alternative hypothesis? That would be the scientific response. Simply denying the AGW hypothesis does not get us closer to understanding the process.

the Green Solution (TM) is remarkably similar to Socialism. Therefore, part of dismantling this nonsense is to show that there is a political agenda behind the scientific one.

Actually, the Green Solution is 100% compatible with our current economic system. Just take the subsidies we currently provide to polluting fossil fuel industries, and provide them to sustainable and environmentally responsible industries instead. No additional socialism required.

“If you support public parks, roads, schools, police, fire, wastewater, etc, then you, too, are a socialist. Welcome comrade!”

not true, but this is beside the point. Whether socialism is good or bad is irrelevant to whether it has grafted it on to modern-day environmentalism. But good luck convincing the local denizens of PJ of the wonders of socialism!

I’m pretty sure you are happy to take advantage of socialism in the forms I mentioned. No need to deny that socialism is part of our nation’s success.

@254. dave:

And yes, I am aware the the argument can be reversed.

That’s why the anti-AGW propaganda is being generated by folks with a vested interest in the fossil fuel economy, not objective scientists.

by the way, in the news: Hansen’s supervisor at NASA is a skeptic. Did you catch that one Dave S? Did you notice that like many scientists, he only “came out” as a skeptic when he retired? Why would that be, in a free-flowing intellectual environment where everyone can speak their minds?
(rhetorical question alert)

Yes, his supervisor who retired fifteen years ago to sell out to industry. Am I supposed to be surprised?

The only folks arguing against the AGW hypothesis are folks with a financial stake in fossil fuels. I wonder why that is?

Peace.

DS

Feb 4, 2009 - 12:41 pm 257. dave:

“Do you have an alternative hypothesis?”
Natural, cyclical variation.

“I’m pretty sure you are happy to take advantage of socialism in the forms I mentioned. No need to deny that socialism is part of our nation’s success.”
Let’s get one thing straight. Publicly funded parks and roads are not socialism. Not even a little bit.

“The only folks arguing against the AGW hypothesis are folks with a financial stake in fossil fuels.”
If you’re talking about people on the payroll of Big Oil & Big Coal etc, your statement is flat out wrong. I personally know of scientists with no industry funding who are skeptics. But as an aside, this notion that any scientist who works for industry is “selling out” is misguided.

Feb 4, 2009 - 2:23 pm 258. David S:

@257. dave:

Natural, cyclical variation is not what is observed. Hence the need for a hypothesis to explain the current, divergent trends.

Publicly funded parks and roads are socialist, no matter how you slice it. In a capitalist utopia, the public would have these things provided by private industry via the open market. We live in a mixed economy. Things like roads and parks are paid for out of tax receipts as a public good. This is clearly a case where society has elected to share the wealth. If you don’t see socialism here, why not?

I am talking about AGW deniers on the payroll of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Industry in general. Don’t tell me you “personally know of” scientists. Name them. Provide evidence. Or you are just blowing smoke.

If you take a look at so-called ‘research’ provided by industry, from Big Tobacco to Big Pharma to Big Oil, it is tainted by commercial interests. Even well-intentioned honest researchers will have their results cherry-picked and publicized as cover for industry.

Not all are “selling out”, but going from a public servant role to a private advocate role often involves substantial remuneration. If I’m wrong, show me, don’t tell me.

Peace.

DS

Feb 4, 2009 - 5:05 pm 259. LennyB:

DS:

In that case, fair enough. I believe that your point regarding fossil fuel industry being partially subsidized by tax credits is a fair thing to discuss, and whether or not that propagates over-consumption of fossil fuels is also worth discussing — and in particular, over-consumption relative to it being finite, and not poison. But either way you slice it, mankind must get a handle on how best to make its footprint sustainable. And I think that arguments that distract from this to try forcing conservation of fossil fuels to happen before its time is the height of absurdity, because as I said, solutions must themselves be sustainable, otherwise they simply won’t take. And I believe AWG has a lot of fraud in it, and you don’t have to follow the data trail very long before you realize it’s not so much a trail, but a prediction. It simply does not have support, and people who believe in it are so fervent and irrational in their dedication to the argument that they will invent data to support it, and when that data is shown to be suspect, they will invent different data — the whole construct is about something that cannot be proven using historical data, and that, my friend, is called something other than “science”.

As for your socialism: reform, brother. Life is not about what’s fair, or what’s right, in your estimation or anyone else’s. People compete against one another, that creates productivity, and ironically it is that productivity and competition that lifts us all up together and permits us to be charitable to our fellow man. If we all become mired in filth and underachievement because livelihood is no longer based on merit and hard work, the maximum help and benefit to our fellow man simply cannot occur, because the productivity to support it will be gone. It takes work to achieve a comfortable standard of living for all mankind. I know you’ve read Adam Smith. I’m not asking you to agree with everything. Rather, I’m asking you to assess the individual you see around you, ask yourself whether the work of some is benefiting the non-work of others, and tell me: do you honestly think socialism is anything other than the poison of all human achievement? Do you honestly think that socialism increases good for the masses, as opposed to the opposite? And last, do you believe socialism would permit the likes of you the luxury of being able to peacefully contemplate the evils of fossil fuel industry and post about same? Or wouldn’t you instead be worried about the stock in your pantry and whether there is going to be a run on bread?

Also — I think tax subsidies to ensure that sufficient risk is taken by the private sector to enable all of us to live in warm houses via the safe delivery of a reliable energy supply sure as heck trump tax incentives that force the impoverished to pay for energy that is more expensive at the present time. You want renewable energy? So do I. Find a way to bring it to market at an affordable price, you crazy innovator. And that’s the privileged existence we lead, where we can even have that discussion. Other people, the kind without internet connections, they are trying to figure out whether to eat or heat their house. When you make poor folks pay for energy and scare them into thinking they are destroying the earth burning coal, that’s called regressive, and you ought to know all about that word if you tend towards socialism in any respect. It’s simply not “fair” that you would hold the developing world and the poor in the first world down simply because you are fortunate enough to have been born at a place and time where it’s all been done by others for you, both historically (industrial revolution) and probably within your own family (two parents, car at 16, and about 8 years of education after high school). Others are not so fortunate and you’ve got no right to keep them down — and a free market prevents you from doing that.

And, isn’t comrade spelled with a “CHE”?

Feb 4, 2009 - 7:47 pm 260. dave:

Name them.

I’ll name one just for fun: Ian Plimer. Beyond that, I’m not going to provide you with lists of skeptics, as you’re pretty much beyond salvation in the fact department and I’m getting the feeling that you’re not really interested in challenging your own mythological beliefs.

“Natural, cyclical variation is not what is observed.”

Correct, because it’s a theory, not an observation. Similarly, AGW is a theory, not an observation.

“If I’m wrong, show me, don’t tell me.”

show you that not all privately funded scientists are corrupt? No, you’re having paranoid socialist fantasies such as this then I think I’ll leave you to it. over and out.

Feb 4, 2009 - 9:08 pm 261. Reed Coray:

Do any of you remember the days when you had to take tests with questions like the following?

“The phrase ‘walking on air’ is to ‘happiness’ as ‘down in the dumps’ is to
(a) health, (b) strength, (c) sadness, (d) your current location, (d) wealth.”

Well, I propose as a result of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarmism, in the future such tests may have the question:

“Which of the following phrases has a denotation that is the direct opposite of its connotation (circle all that apply)?

(a) Too good to be true.
(b) Yeah, right.
(c) Settled science.
(d) Easy money.
(e) Well rounded.

Hint: For the AGW alarmism crowd, the answers are (b) and (c).

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:22 am 262. Gary in NYC:

This is a disturbing distraction from the real problem that we’re facing, folks.

POLLUTION.

Despite all the safeguards and regulations that are supposedly in place, we still produce millions of tons of garbage annually. Some of it biodegrades, but much of it does not. We dump it into the oceans, we shove it under the earth, but it’s still there. Just because we can’t see it, smell it, or taste it, doesn’t serve as proof of non-existence.

The foundation of AGW is that mankind is producing too much carbon for the environment to swallow. It might be minuscule. It might be significant. There are different agendas. Some people are genuinely concerned about the environment. Some want to start a new career for themselves. And others fear a cost impact to their business and will fight against any measures that cause it, no matter what the reasons.

The fact is… we need to cut back on pollution. PERIOD. If we do and global warming slows down/reverses, we’ve done the right thing. If we do and global warming seems unaffected, we’ve still done the right thing. The key is keeping our environment clean, so that future human beings and other life forms can exist without the constant threat of free radicals. Our pollution kills other life, at levels the average citizen has no clue about. Our pollution is responsible for instigating many forms of cancer. It’s simply not healthy.

So let’s focus on what really matters. STOP POLLUTING. Engineer better products that last and disposable ones that easily biodegrade. And cut back on the clutter. We generate SO MUCH JUNK, it’s not funny. Lets conserve our resources and use them wisely. And maybe we’ll have a chance at living for many eons to come.

Feb 5, 2009 - 8:28 pm 263. tired of this:

“The fact is… we need to cut back on pollution. PERIOD.”

Gary, the debate is whether CO2 is in fact pollution, or if it’s just what polar bears exhale. Is C02 pollution? It’s always been here. It’s part of the life cycle. It’s invisible, odorless, and plants love it.

Feb 6, 2009 - 3:37 am 264. Deguello:

I disagree: the greatest fraud in history was Marxism,Global warming is #2 pushed by the same kind of human tumors.

Feb 6, 2009 - 9:56 am 265. David S:

@259. LennyB:

forcing conservation of fossil fuels to happen before its time is the height of absurdity, because as I said, solutions must themselves be sustainable, otherwise they simply won’t take.

Continued reliance on fossil fuels is demonstrably unsustainable. Without subsidies, we would have moved much farther away from fossil fuel, probably to a sustainable fuel source like solar power.

I believe AWG has a lot of fraud in it, and you don’t have to follow the data trail very long before you realize it’s not so much a trail, but a prediction.

You may believe there is a lot of fraud, and undoubtedly there is some fraud, as in any field of science. However, the evidence on the whole is pretty convincing. Of course, as a scientific hypothesis it is subject to revision as the data comes in. So far, each additional piece of data supports AGW.

tell me: do you honestly think socialism is anything other than the poison of all human achievement? Do you honestly think that socialism increases good for the masses, as opposed to the opposite? And last, do you believe socialism would permit the likes of you the luxury of being able to peacefully contemplate the evils of fossil fuel industry and post about same? Or wouldn’t you instead be worried about the stock in your pantry and whether there is going to be a run on bread?

I believe socialism is already a force in our economy. It is not a poison, and can improve conditions for the masses, although like any system it can also be manipulated to do the opposite. I do think that limited democratic socialism would permit plenty of time to contemplate the evils of the fossil fuel industry, and might even make reducing these evils easier.

I’m not arguing to keep anyone down, but I do think it’s way past time that we address the global consequences of an economy reliant on cheap and limitless supplies of fossil fuel which don’t exist. I think it best to be proactive, rather than reactive, and to prepare for the eventual shift that will need to be made.

And, isn’t comrade spelled with a “CHE”?

Not in my dictionary, chum.

Peace.

DS

Feb 8, 2009 - 2:55 pm 266. John715:

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap phentermine , xanax , buy xanax , buy phentermine , viagra ,

Jul 4, 2009 - 9:59 pm 267. Steve Meikle:

One thing that concerns me is that when AGW is finally rejected as the nonsense it is, so the big polluters will feel justified and go berserk in their polluting.

For myself I have never belived in AGW, because I read history and knew about the medieval warm period years ago.

It was a help to me to have my instinct confirmed by investigating the real science from the Climate Realists (i reject the term denier as it is loaded, and skeptic seems to indicate a congenital nay sayer)

AS far as I am concerned the science in the debate is settled – i said the real science, not the consensus nor the agitprop by IPCC and its cohorts: there is no human induced global warming, there never was, and now the world is cooling.

But the debate must be resolved soon, for continuing to take arable land out of food production for the sake of bio fuels so good liberals can feel good about driving their SUV’s will continue to force the price of food up and it will be the third world poor who will starve.

Dec 26, 2009 - 11:36 am 268. Justa Joe:

“…Without subsidies, we would have moved much farther away from fossil fuel, probably to a sustainable fuel source like solar power.” -DS

Funny before DS was haranguing Exxon for being too profitable. Anyway I’m surprised nobody has called out DS on his alternate fuels. Wind, solar, geothermal, batteries? etc. (note no mention of nuclear) All of this presently is a lib pipedream.

None of DS’s prefered fuels are viable at this time or in the forseeable future, and they certainly can’t displace fossil fuels. Not that I buy into the idea that we need to immediately abandon fossil fuels.

Jan 29, 2010 - 1:26 pm