Pajamas Media » Global Warming: Mostly Hot Air

Global Warming: Mostly Hot Air

As more data come in, the dire predictions of Al Gore and company are being exposed as unfounded alarmism. Is the game close to being up for eco-mongers and their media enablers?

May 14, 2008 - by Mike McNally

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

The past few months have not been good to the still-infant discipline of climate change alarmism — that strange amalgam of pseudo-science, crystal ball gazing, and mass hysteria that was formerly known as global warming alarmism until it became apparent a few years back that the globe had in fact stopped warming, and the alarmists decided that the term “climate change” was a more effective way of describing what the rest of us call “weather.”

For around a decade now — since around the time, coincidentally, that the warming stopped — the alarmists have had things pretty much their own way, dominating the debate with ever more dramatic predictions of impending doom as man-made CO2 emissions heat up the planet, and managing for the best part to keep a lid on dissent, thanks to an unlikely, and decidedly unholy, alliance of organizations and individuals with a vested interest in upping the fear factor.

This alliance includes politicians who see climate change as a new way of persuading citizens to give them more power; corporations who play on our concern and guilt to sell us anything from eco-friendly washing powder to flex-fuel SUVs; scientists keen to get their hands on a share of the $5 billion handed out by governments and NGOs each year for climate change research; and the legions of bureaucrats employed to draw up regulations and run the globe-trotting climate conference circus.

Then there’s the lavishly funded environmental lobby; socialists who see climate change as their last, best hope of undermining free-market democracies and cutting the United States down to size; and a media which understands that “World Ends Tomorrow” stories get more viewers than “Everything Likely to Be Just Fine” stories, and whose members tend to side with the leftist, anti-American crowd.

Given such an array of talents and interests it’s a wonder any of us are still allowed to drive a car, fly in a plane, or light a barbecue. And indeed the alarmist movement has come worryingly close to achieving critical mass. Its apotheosis probably came around a couple of years ago, when Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was doing the rounds, and you couldn’t open a magazine or turn on the TV without seeing photos of polar bears “stranded” on ice flows, CG renderings of famous landmarks under 30 feet of water, or interviews in which Al’s celebrity eco-buddies promised to take a long, hard look at their Learjet usage.

Not that there weren’t dissenting voices. A sizable minority of scientists has for years been disputing the basic science behind climate change alarmism (you can find a list of 400 leading “skeptics” here), arguing that the relatively small amount of warming (less than a degree Celsius) observed in the 20th century was well within the natural range of variation in the Earth’s temperature, and questioning the assumption that human activity was to blame. Climate is always changing, they pointed out, and there’s no such thing as an “ideal” temperature for the planet.

They also noted that other planets in our solar system had been experiencing similar warming, notably Mars — despite the fact that, while NASA has succeeded in sending a couple of robot probes to the red planet, they have yet to land an SUV there. Back on Earth, they presented evidence that temperature drove CO2 emissions, and not the other way round. They suggested that natural factors, such as solar activity or the oceans, might play a role in regulating the climate, and that a couple of degrees of warming would anyway have net benefits for most countries.

And even if the warming was man-made, the skeptics argued, the measures the alarmists claimed were necessary to stop the warming would have greater economic and social costs than those that would be incurred by simply adapting to changes in climate — a particularly sensible course of action in the event that the warming did turn out to be natural — while waiting for market forces to make low-carbon technologies viable. Most significantly, the skeptics pointed out that the increase in global temperatures appeared to have stopped around 1998, despite the fact that CO2 output had continued rising.

But despite persuasive evidence that the Earth’s climate was not following the alarmist script, and that proposals to “combat” the hypothetical problems were ill thought out to say the least, the skeptics have struggled to make their voices heard outside the skeptic blogs, websites, and think tanks. They’ve had their reputations rubbished, funding withheld, and been likened to Holocaust deniers. A writer for an environmentalist website famously suggested that “we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

A recent survey exposed the extent of bias among news programs on the three main U.S. networks: just one-fifth of stories about climate change featured opinions that dissented from the alarmist orthodoxy. However, CNN has probably outdone them all in terms of melodramatic reporting — hardly surprising given that founder Ted Turner thinks global warming will have turned those of us who aren’t lucky enough to be dead into cannibals within 40 years. Meanwhile, in the UK the BBC has effectively seconded dozens of its journalists to the alarmist PR machine, unquestioningly reporting new findings that support the alarmist narrative, while largely ignoring research that questions the “consensus,” other than to debunk it. Reputable science journals haven’t been much kinder to the skeptics, who often find it difficult to get research published as editors take an increasingly pro-alarmist stance.

But the skeptics have refused to be silenced, and in the past year or so there have been signs the momentum is beginning to shift away from the alarmists and towards the realm of common sense. Most significantly, it’s becoming abundantly clear that the Earth is not warming in the way the alarmists have claimed it should be. In February of this year a raft of data from the leading monitoring centers showed that average global temperatures had fallen by around 0.65º C, effectively canceling out the recent 30-year warming trend and leaving the Earth’s temperature close to what the alarmists would consider “normal.” And a few weeks later the World Meteorological Association reported that global temperatures would fall again this year.

Two years of cooling do not a new ice age make, but they do raise serious doubts about the predictions made by the alarmists, and undermine the fundamental tenet of climate change theory: that global temperatures will continue to increase in line with CO2 emissions. Predictably, the alarmists have simply discounted the cooling, claiming that the long-term temperature trend is still upwards, and explaining away the fall by pointing to the cooling effects of the La Nina weather system — despite refusing to credit the warming El Nino system with contributing to 1998 being the warmest year since records began.

The alarmists also said we’d see an increase in hurricanes and other storms as the planet warmed, but this hasn’t proved to be the case, and several studies have shown no link between global temperatures and hurricane activity. Similarly, there has been no significant rise in sea levels, despite the alarmists’ predictions to the contrary. So much for the science, which, contrary to the alarmist mantra, is far from settled.

Another fact that’s become clear is that there’s next to no agreement between those national governments and NGOs that have signed up to climate change alarmism about what to do to reduce CO2 emissions. The latest talks on how to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012 broke up just last week, with negotiators agreeing on nothing except the need to have more meetings.

For all their fine words, politicians are understandably reluctant to sign up to policies that will drive jobs overseas, further inflate already high energy prices, and generally wreck their countries’ economies. Australia’s eco-friendly Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose election last year was hailed as a major victory by the alarmists, started backtracking on his commitments as soon as someone showed him the projected bill. Europe, however, is pressing ahead with emissions trading, or “cap and trade” schemes, despite warnings that they will result in vast windfall profits for energy companies and higher prices for consumers, while doing little to curb emissions.

In the U.S., President Bush’s latest plan for tackling climate change, while criticized by some conservatives, is a model of responsibility in comparison to polices being proposed elsewhere, combining energy efficiency regulations with greater investment in nuclear power, “clean coal,” and new energy technologies. And it’s telling that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who have been critical of the current administration’s lack of action on climate change, have had little to say on the subject as they campaign in coal-producing Pennsylvania, other than to talk about creating five million “clean” and “high-tech” energy jobs. It may come as news to Senators Clinton and Obama, but if America embraces renewable energy there won’t be much call for armies of laborers to toil amid the acres of wind turbines and solar panels.

There’s also no prospect of agreement on who should pay for policies designed to reduce global CO2 emissions. China — which has overtaken the U.S. as the world’s leading emitter — along with India and leading African nations, argue that they shouldn’t have to pay for measures to mitigate environmental problems caused by the developed nations. The developed nations, in turn, argue that they shouldn’t be penalized just because free-market policies enabled their economies to grow more rapidly than those of countries that persevered with various forms of socialism.

Yet another problem is the rush to biofuels, which was seen as a “magic bullet” by politicians for reducing CO2 emissions and achieving energy independence — not least in the U.S. — but is rapidly turning into a disaster worthy of an Al Gore movie all of its own. Dozens of studies have shown that the production of most biofuels causes more harm to the environment than the fuels themselves save, while the turning over of agricultural land from food production to growing crops for fuel is driving up food prices around the world.

Against the backdrop of these scientific and political developments, the public is becoming increasingly mistrustful of alarmist rhetoric. Al Gore’s massively hyped Live Earth event last summer was a flop of suitably global proportions — the only headlines it generated were for the air miles racked up by Gore’s troupe of platitude-spewing stars, the negligible viewing figures, and the mountains of rubbish left behind at the concert venues. More bad news for Gore followed when a British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine factual errors — the court case focused attention on Gore’s mendacity even as he was collecting his richly undeserved Nobel Peace Prize.

Gore is back peddling his patented brand of misinformation and fear-mongering with a $300 million advertising campaign — an awful lot of money, given that he’s been telling us for years that “the debate is over.” But the old magic seems to have gone, and these days he looks like nothing so much as the little boy who cried wolf. Short of appearing on stage with Elvis, and announcing that far from being dead the King has, in fact, been in self-imposed exile on a Pacific atoll studying the threat of rising sea levels, Al has played all his cards. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that precisely zero per cent of Americans — yes, zero, that’s not a typo — rated global warming as the most important issue in the upcoming presidential election.

The alarmists are in no mood to give up. Earlier this month the BBC altered its report on those falling global temperatures after a green activist emailed the reporter who wrote the story, threatening to launch a campaign to discredit him. But far from this being a victory for the climate change camp, it backfired spectacularly — the story was picked up by bloggers and news media around the world, shining a light on the increasingly nasty tactics used by the lunatic fringe of the alarmist movement, and further damaging the BBC’s already battered reputation as an impartial news source.

Around the world people are beginning to see the disconnect between what politicians, environmentalists, and the media tell them, and what they see with their own eyes. Many countries have experienced record cold temperatures and snowfall over the past few months, and a person who’s just dug their car out of the snow doesn’t appreciate being told that their power bills are going up because of regulations to combat “global warming.” They’re not going to stand for job losses, higher living costs, and other hardships in the cause of shaving a hypothetical degree or two of warming a hundred years from now.

And as the disquiet grows even elements of the previously supine media may begin to change their tune. While some journalists are ideologically invested in attacking the Bush administration and promoting the role of the UN, or genuinely think they’re saving the planet, others are just chasing the next big story, and if the story becomes that politicians and corporations have been misleading and exploiting the public, they’re likely to jump off one bandwagon and on to another one heading in the opposite direction.

Maybe the current cooling will continue, maybe it won’t — unlike the alarmists, skeptics don’t claim to be able to see 100 years into the future. If the planet does continue to warm slightly, the billions that the alarmists want to spend in a futile bid to prevent it would be better spent tackling the real problems facing the world right now, as Bjorn Lomborg has so eloquently argued. (Imagine how many vaccination and water treatment programs Gore’s $300 million vanity fund would pay for in Africa.) And if the cooling continues, our descendants could find themselves heading for another ice age — and, ironically, desperately searching for ways to warm the planet.

Too many interested parties have too much invested in climate change alarmism to admit that the game is up just yet, but sooner or later their position is going to become untenable. And when it does, while acknowledging that many people embraced climate change alarmism for genuine reasons, we’ll have to decide what to do with those who knew or suspected their claims had no substance, but pressed on out of a desire to get rich or impose their ideologies on others.

Nuremberg-style trials anyone?

Mike McNally blogs at The Monkey Tennis Centre.

262 Comments

Consanescerion:

Great summary!

Here’s some data on the recent cooling:

January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months

May 14, 2008 - 1:47 am dmgold:

I dont know if I agree with you. The Global warming locomotive is at high speed. Down here in Helen Clarks New Zealand one can be almost tared and feathered for even thinking that Global warming doesnt add up!!! I know I have regular heated disagreements on this subject with my 12 year old daughter who has declared that she is ” a believer”.

3-4 years of non stop brain washing is taking its toll- its pretty hard to counter much less start pushing back.

May 14, 2008 - 2:05 am richard:

Thank you for speaking out. We need more of this and we need it now.

May 14, 2008 - 2:54 am John Lewis:

I would also love to believe this. The facts of today’s politics in the US are following those of New Zealand. When all three presidential candidates talk fondly of Kyoto and “our social responsibility,” I get worried. When used by a politician, the word “our” always seems to come back to hit me and my taxes. Governments are not going to give up this new source of potential tax revenue.

May 14, 2008 - 4:03 am politicalreacharound:

I don’t understand you people. Despite what this guy says, he is not a scientist and the facts are there which support global warming. Why do conservatives not believe in science? You come off looking like apes in the dark age. Whats really troubling is your disconnect of how being eco-friendly improves our country, citizens and world. Think about (if you can). Less emmissions means less energy used which cuts down our reliance on foreign oil and drops the price of gas due to less demand. Our natural environment improves includes giving us a higher standard of living. Foreign countries (since they believe in global warming) respect the US more for taking the lead in solving the problem. We get to give our kids a better, cleaner world and its profitable. Are you all too lazy, wasteful and dense that you can’t understand that confronting climate change and environmental issues helps everyone?

May 14, 2008 - 6:05 am Jack:

It will only take time. Meanwhile, I am looking forward to a temperate summer, pleasant fall and a long winter.

Gore is screwed and I hope that he looses a lot of money. But it will be easy to tell when the Goracle stops believing: monitor the stock transactions of the companies he is involved with.

As for Cyclone Nagris, why haven’t we heard anything about the failure of the Myanmar Republic to evacuate its people from the coast?

May 14, 2008 - 6:08 am Joanna:

For me, the most telling bit was here: “And if the cooling continues, our descendants could find themselves heading for another ice age — and, ironically, desperately searching for ways to warm the planet.” Either way (warm or cold), people will adjust. Humanity has survived worse disasters in the past (the volcanic winter of 1816, for instance). Why should we spend our time worrying about something that may never happen? More to the point, why do we assume the grown adults of the future won’t be able to take care of themselves?

May 14, 2008 - 7:17 am WillyT:

You reference 1998 as the hottest year on record, yet as I understand it, NASA has revised their records to show that 1934 was the hottest year on record, as well as changing a lot of other “records”. See a column by Michelle Malkin for info:http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/

Enjoyed the column. Too bad John McCain didn’t read it before shooting himself in the foot in Oregon.

Arlington, Texas

May 14, 2008 - 7:19 am Fred Beloit:

pol…. writes “Despite what this guy says, he is not a scientist and the facts are there which support global warming.”
Umm. Actually, the “facts” do not support global warming. Why do liberals so badly misunderstand and politicize science?

May 14, 2008 - 7:52 am John D:

To politicalreacharound
You just don’t get it do you? The point of the article is that the science, politics and motivation on “climate change” are all flawed. If we listened to people like you all western democracies would end up bankrupt. Speaking as a UK citizen that has to suffer the BBC propoganda, (in the UK we have to pay an annual tax to the BBC of $280 so they can keep brainwashing us), it is great to read that the most important player, the USA, is starting to show leadership to the world in debunking this nonsense.
Great article-keep it up.

May 14, 2008 - 8:03 am MikeD:

Thank God that voices of reason are finally being heard. The earth may or may not be warming or cooling–we simply do not know. What is patently clear to anyone with any common sense is that the idea of a significant anthropogenic contribution is nonsense and a hoax. Believing people like Al Gore or John McCain on this matter (or any scientific principle for that matter) is pure folly. Neither one could think their way out of a wet paper bag.

May 14, 2008 - 8:06 am politicalreacharound:

So what you are all saying is that the ice caps aren’t melting?

May 14, 2008 - 8:19 am dre:

“So what you are all saying is that the ice caps aren’t melting?”

They melt in the summer and freeze in the winter. This has occurred for 1000s of years.

May 14, 2008 - 8:36 am Rod Clemson:

politicalreacharound:

1) “you people”?
2) “apes in the dark age”
3) “think about (if you can)”
4) “Are you all too lazy, wasteful and dense”

Cute “dood”.

May 14, 2008 - 8:39 am David:

Good article, “‘warms’ the cockles of my heart”.

May 14, 2008 - 8:40 am David:

“So what you are all saying is that the ice caps aren’t melting?”

Yes in the winter months they actually put on ice and in the summer they melt, that is called seasons, seems to affect the weather, something to do with the suns rays or so I believe.

May 14, 2008 - 8:42 am Rod Clemson:

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

politicalreacharound:

Take a moment from your day and read this interview. It probably won’t change any minds but it is from a scientist. Enjoy.

Rod

May 14, 2008 - 8:48 am Will Becker:

It’s time to put the enviro-wacos in their place,out of sight.

May 14, 2008 - 8:50 am Henry Crun:

Halleluja! And I thought I was the only one who saw through the hoax that was global warming. And so it is being revealed. Wonder when the BBC will finally get the message and stop peddling the politicised garbage that masquerades as science.

dmgold, remind your daughter that Science is all about experiments and theories and constantly testing theories to see if they are valid or not. Science is not a faith that one has to “believe in”. Failing that, you will have to just hope she grows out of it.

May 14, 2008 - 8:59 am Rubicon:

Ice cap growth over the past year is reported even greater than ever before. That dog don’t bark no more.
Ecology & responsible environmental actions are obvious to all. Over-reaction & socio-political actions designed to create a new socialist order where govt tells us all what to do while we pay outrageous taxes for programs whose returns will be pitiful, at best, are NOT the solution.
Had the enviro lobby approached this with sane reasoning & with sane programs & w/o the serious political actions they demand be “imposed” on all, more may have bought into it. But the whole think smelled bad from the get go & it still does.
Spending hundreds of billions to save us from a degree or even three degrees is irrational. Mankind has & can adapt to any change save a violent one and none of you are anywhere good enough to tell us it will be violent!
The gig is up & now time will reveal the ulterior motives of those who have tried to hoodwink we common “folk.”

May 14, 2008 - 9:00 am politicalreacharound:

So let me get this straight. Conservatives buy into the argument that if there is a 1% chance of WMDs in Iraq than we must go to war. Yet if there is a 99% chance global warming is happening we shouldn’t do anything until every last person is convinced. Genius, and by genius I mean you are all not very smart.

May 14, 2008 - 9:04 am Boris:

Well, well, well, the author starts out by proving he cannot calculate a trend properly (Go ahead, calculate a trend from 1998 to 2007; you’ll find, once someone has helped you to do it properly, that the trend is positive) and then he moves on into conspiracy theories.

The position of the National Academies of Science and the UK’s Royal Society is that global warming is real and man made. When wingnuts like this fool think they are smarter than the scientific community–or that the scientific community is in on some conspiracy–then that tells you how far their ideology has affected their ability to reason.

Hey, the 911 troofers do this too, so stupidity and insane conspiracies are spread all along the political spectrum.

May 14, 2008 - 9:24 am dre:

“So let me get this straight. Conservatives buy into the argument that if there is a 1% chance of WMDs in Iraq than we must go to war. Yet if there is a 99% chance global warming is happening we shouldn’t do anything until every last person is convinced.”

apple meet orange

May 14, 2008 - 9:27 am Boris:

Here is the statement of the Joint Academies of Science of the G8 countries:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth
unless counter-measures are taken.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/693k9p

Now, which is it? Are rightwinegrs with little or no training more qualified to assess the evidence? Or are the national academies of science running a huge conspiracy?

May 14, 2008 - 9:38 am Diogenes:

politicalreacharound

Antarctic sea ice info

The unprecedented levels of southern hemisphere sea ice would tend to suggest that, no, the ice caps are not melting.

May 14, 2008 - 9:43 am politicalreacharound:

No, it means conservatives are easily fooled by fear mongering politicians yet very skeptical when it comes to hard science. It means you’re idiots, which is why the educated can be so condescending to you.

May 14, 2008 - 9:44 am BackwardsBoy:

politicalreacharound, someone needs to say this to you; you have been brainwashed.

May 14, 2008 - 9:45 am doug quarnstrom:

Yeah, I dont understand this. If you go to realclimate.org there is a very good article on the statistics of the prediction, and in fact that data does *not* support the conclusion that the warming has stopped. Variations in weather can make it appear so, but still not statistically prove that this is the case.

I am COMPLETELY open to changing my mind about global warming, and I am one of those people that does not particularly care whether it is happening anyway. But all these news stories claiming that the trend has stopped are incorrect.

May 14, 2008 - 9:45 am Moultrie:

The Global Warming-will-kill-us posters sound just like the Obama and RuPaul posters. they will not listen to anything that opposes their favorite flavor and become angry and nasty like petulant children.

May 14, 2008 - 9:53 am Ratatosk:

While I myself am suspicious of any claims of Science, particularly around major predictions, I have to take issue with this article.

Global warming, if it exists is a new phenomena, its been observed for only a few years and the data and models seem iffy at best. However, this article, in and of itself is nothing more than someone bloviating about a topic that they are not educated in. The comments, thus, read as desperate individuals, willing to agree with anyone who wants to support their worldview. Sad on both counts.

Global Warming may, like WMD’s in Iraq, be Bullshit, purely designed to con regular people into a path that some elites want them to take… but, this article is about as useful as the bullshit articles, written by less than educated wannabe reporters that questioned WMD’s before the Iraq invasion… sure they were right, but only in the sense that they happened to guess correctly on a 50/50 wager.

May 14, 2008 - 9:59 am garrett:

There is no 99% chance that the global environment is warming. It is a simple as that. There is demonstrated swings in overall warming and cooling paterns over a short range of years, that seem to be loosely periodic. there is no relationship watsoever to the steadily increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, hence very little likelyhood that the temperature variation and or periodic climate shifts are human caused.

When the local temperature variations are plotted it is clear that there are climate changes unequally distributed around the globe. China, European Rusia and northern Europe is experiencing increased temperatures, Berritan and North America, particularly the industrialized north east, are experiencing dramatic cooling. Again, since industrialized North America and China are responsible for approximately equal percentages of the total CO2 output, there is no clear relationship. China, however, far outstrips North merica in Adumping raw pollutants, nitrous oxides, acids and soot into the atmosphere, so there may be some correlation there.

May 14, 2008 - 10:01 am EDW:

A few observations:

1)Whether or not global warming warrants the hysteria, local pollution is very real, energy independence is desparately needed, and green technologies can potentially serve us quite well. Let’s pump the oil using windmills until the oil is no longer necessary, and we’ll all be happy.

2)Ethanol is only useful when it’s aged in an oak barrel for at least 10 years.

3)The worst that happens is we lose Vanuatu and Bangladesh. Give ‘em California. Liberal guilt will be simultaneously assuaged and revenged.

May 14, 2008 - 10:05 am Politicalreacharound is a putz:

So PRA - did you actually read any of the linked SCIENTIFIC articles? Are you aware of how science works? Let me give you a hint - it’s got nothing to do with “consensus”, although there’s anything but consensus about global warming, and even less about anthropogenic global warming. How do you explain the global cooling occuring over the last two years? You are the one coming off looking like an idiot, ignoring actual long-term evidence in favor of your emotions.

This apparently extends to WMDs. Based on the lack of your reading the scientific articles, I assume you didn’t read things like the 9-11 commission report or the ISG report. Plenty of information out there about these things as well.

You would do well with an open mind, a little investigation, and some reading, instead of self-gratification.

May 14, 2008 - 10:20 am Al Gore:

You think Global Warming is bad? If you love your family, if you love your children, you’ll want to see my new film.

SUPERNOVA!

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/94145/detail/

May 14, 2008 - 10:23 am mishu:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing,

That the one consistency about climate. It changes. Anyone thinks man can stop climate from changing is mad.

May 14, 2008 - 10:24 am Boris:

“How do you explain the global cooling occuring over the last two years?”

Stop calling people an idiot when you believe that climate can be determined over two years. The scientific definition of climate is weather over a long period of time.

You do have an open mind. For you climate could mean anything.

May 14, 2008 - 10:32 am Boris:

“That the one consistency about climate. It changes.”

Way to read half a sentence there. Great research skills.

May 14, 2008 - 10:33 am MarkD:

Actually there were WMDs found in Iraq. Yes, they weren’t as numerous as some pre-war estimates, but they did exist. Saddam did use them against the Kurds.

Certainty is easy when one ignores all conflicting data.

May 14, 2008 - 10:34 am More questions:

Hey Inconvenient Truth lovers!

Did you know that computer graphics were used to provide “dramatic impact” in Al Gore’s documentary? That’s right. He used CGI straight from the poorly-attended blockbuster “The Day After Tomorrow” to show the Antarctic ice shelf collapsing. He talked about how majestic these cliffs are, but wouldn’t tell any of you “reality-based” crowd that he just cut-and-pasted off of his DVD. I guess he figured since so few people saw “The Day After Tomorrow” that nobody would notice. As is standard operating procedure in Al Gore Land, no explanation was given, no requests were even acknowledged.

What a bunch of suckers.

http://newsbusters.org/stories/al_gore_used_fictional_video_inconvenient_truth.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth

May 14, 2008 - 10:35 am Boris is a bonehead:

Hey Boris,

Take your own medicine. There was nothing in that previous post that said the two year cycle of cooling was total proof, it just showed that the folks who believe in constant upward trends of temperature every year are wrong. PRA didn’t want to look at that.

Take a look at the what the head of the NOAA says - “The problem here is that climate is inherently unpredictable and currently of little more than entertainment value. What is important is weather and its forecasting, hopefully a season or two in advance. Over the decades, as we untangle more of the cycles involved in climate, we may be able to predict multidecadal warming and cooling cycles (most importantly how these will affect precipitation regionally) and these will be useful policy tools but nothing in our current or foreseeable abilities makes climate worthy of special attention. Note we have an appalling record of predicting such well-studied and critical annual and multiannual cycles as ISMR (Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall) and ENSO (El Niño southern Oscillation) and these have massive agricultural importance to the world. Stick to the weather — despite appearances we are beginning to understand some of it.”

In other words, the 100-year climate models are not accurate. If you watch the weather you know they can’t even figure the weather right a week into the future, let alone 100 years.

Oh yeah - ask those poor bastards in China who have suffered through the worst winter in a half century if they believe in anthropogenic global warming. Keep in mind that the Chinese are the world’s leading CO2 generators.

May 14, 2008 - 10:44 am Boris is a bonehead:

Lame response to mishu, Boris. Keep trying!

May 14, 2008 - 10:47 am Andrew Ian Dodge:

So how many people are going to die in the hysteria-caused food shortages in the third world before they realise they were wrong? Guess it will be another case of Al Gore & Co “meaning well” so sod the consequences.

Anti-capitalists have found the ecology as a way to ruin the world capitalist economy. And they are loving every minute of it.

No one believes that climate is not always changing, as it has always been thus, its just a matter of whether or not man has a significant effect on it.

May 14, 2008 - 10:47 am Consanescerion:

Ratatosk: The link I posted in the first comment has all the proof you need from four different scientific research groups (HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS)… all are relied on by the IPCC. No warming, it’s plateaued. Don’t scientific theories need proof? If global warming advocates have predicted warming for ten years, and it hasn’t warmed… shouldn’t there be some rethinking going on?

Quarnstorm: Facts trump theory. Since there’s been no significant warming since 1998, and now there’s no warming predicted ’til 2015 because of La Nina (see the journal Nature), then surely someone will point out that the global warming models aren’t working? Or is this theory immune to facts? Meanwhile RealClimate is trying to discredit the German Marine scientists who made the prediction. That site seems controlled more by gadflies than people who behave like sober scientists.

Boris: How has that body managed to ignore that, as the head of the IPCC admitted, global warming has plaeaued? (See: Climate Facts)

Politicalreacharound: Good luck with that approach! You’re sooo much smarter than the rest of us, and your name-calling convinces us all of your positions. You’re helping the cause I’m sure.

For those of you criticizing us Global Warmism skeptics because we are contradicting “Science”:

Here’s 103 scientists who disagree with the global warmist alarmism: Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Ever here of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change from the International Science Climate Coalition?

May 14, 2008 - 10:50 am Boris & PRA kissing in a tree:

Hey Boris and Reach-around,

Want some science? Here’s some.
http://co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

This goes into detail about the Medieval Warm Period. Bottom line is that according to data published by 534 individual scientists from 326 separate research institutions in 38 different countries there was a Medieval Warm Period. No evil SUVs, Chinese industrialists, or Republicans to be found in the Medieval Warm Period.

May 14, 2008 - 10:50 am Boris & PRA kissing in a tree:

How about more science?

Yep, that’s right, more. Turns out there’s a paper floating around that looked at a lot of the data the IPCC didn’t want to touch. Want to see it?

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

May 14, 2008 - 10:54 am Bueller? Bueller?:

Anyone? Feel free to respond to the mad science. (Did you know these articles come from real, peer-reviewed scientists?)

May 14, 2008 - 11:01 am Boris:

Boris is a bonehead,

“it just showed that the folks who believe in constant upward trends of temperature every year are wrong.”

Great. It showed that an argument no one is making is wrong. When you’re ready to tackle the real arguments and not the ones you make up so that you can feel smart, let me know.

You are still confusing weather and climate, but you know more than the NAS. Sure, pal.

May 14, 2008 - 11:08 am Boris:

“Turns out there’s a paper floating around that looked at a lot of the data the IPCC didn’t want to touch.”

Anyone who believes the Heartland Institute over the National Academies and the Royal Society is an idiot.

May 14, 2008 - 11:12 am Michael:

Why do liberals like Politialreacharound and Boris make a religion out of their pet issues? They don’t say “Well let’s look at your data and my data, check for validity and see what we come out with.” They launch ad hominem attacks and try to silence anyone who has a different viewpoint.

That tells me their “faith” is being questioned and indeed shaken.

May 14, 2008 - 11:27 am Javelin:

Wow, your opinion whine is more abusive and anti-intellectaul than most of the pro global warming ones. Yeah, anyone who believes in global warming is a crazed red, only right wing crackpots talk like. That’s right, generalize and insult, after all this is the place to do it.

May 14, 2008 - 11:27 am Boris:

Consanescerion,

global warming has not plateaued. If you cherry pick 1998 as a start year, you still get a positive trend–although ti is not very positive. But if choose any other year from the 1990s, you get a strong warming trend. So your whole idea that global warming has stopped is nonsense. Buy your logic global warming stopped many times in the 1980s and 1990s. Not very reassuring, is it?

May 14, 2008 - 11:38 am Boris is a bonehead:

Ooh, namecalling!

Nobody is making that argument? Your prophet of doooooom, Al Gore made that argument in his little art-house film. James Hansen made that same argument before it was found his numbers were fudged. I never claimed to know more than the NAS. However, other scientists who do know something do know more. I, unlike you, can actually read both sides and see what has more validity. I say that the report that looks at all of the data has more validity. You?

Did you actually READ the Heartland document, Boris? Are all of those scientists idiots too? Or could it be they just don’t believe the half-baked science you’re peddling? Don’t be scared. Your tiny worldview is the only thing at stake.

May 14, 2008 - 11:44 am Boris:

“They launch ad hominem attacks and try to silence anyone who has a different viewpoint.”

Dude, the author of this article and most posters have said that global warming is a hoax ans scientists are doing it just for money. They insult the scientists who work on this issue and when I come along and say that is a stupid position, you complain that I said “stupid.”

Mike McNally didn’t present any data. He went on a lengthy screed that accused scientists of being corrupt. He also showed that he doesn’t have the faintest clue how to calculate a trend. But don’t be rude to the guy who accuses scientists of being corrupt and does so with an ignorance of statistical and climatological issues that is breathtaking in its completeness! Give me a break.

May 14, 2008 - 11:45 am Javelin's a Jackass:

I guess we’re all taking lessons from you on generalizing and insulting. Not a single word in your comment provided any additional value to this conversation. Thanks.

Even Boris has more intellectual cojones than you.

Did I do OK?

May 14, 2008 - 11:49 am Thanos:

The ice cap has increased by 5%, polar bear population is at highs. The Larsen B shelf was melted by undersea volcanoes a few years back. (If it was going to fail or melt, then why not in 1998 when we reached temperature highs?)

Oh, and here’s a paper, with lots of evidence predicting climate out 30 years - it’s cooling. Lots of real science to back that to. Argue with him. This is a PDF link.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

May 14, 2008 - 11:51 am Boris is a bonehead:

Hey Boris - waiting for your reply on the Medieval Warm Period.

May 14, 2008 - 12:00 pm Boris:

“Ooh, namecalling!”

Look, moron, you call yourself “Boris is a bonehead,” so I assume you can take it. If I hurt your feelings, I’ll let up.

Nobody is making the argument that temperature will increase each and every year. If someone has made the argument, you should be able to prove it. Go ahead, find Gore or Hansen saying that. Or save your time and admit you are making stuff up.

Yes, I’ve read the Heartland stuff. I like how they think that measuring CO2 concentrations in the middle of cities gives a valuable reading of the background atmosphere concentration.

May 14, 2008 - 12:11 pm Boris:

I’ll respond to your post when you provide proof that Gore or Hansen said that temps will rise every year. Go ahead. Prove it. Don’t pass up the opportunity to make me look stupid.

Will you slink away, change the subject or admit that you were lying? This should interesting…

May 14, 2008 - 12:14 pm Michael:

I love it when posters can’t help but prove an opponent’s point.

As I said, look at “all” the data, check for validity and make an honest conclusion. Just not a lot of that going on. Yes that is on both sides of the issue. For me I have looked at both sides the global warming thesis and I find that it is just not compelling.

When data is this weak yet the proponents are so venemous in there attacks I can only think it is time to “follow the money”. I find there is a lot of money to follow.

May 14, 2008 - 12:21 pm politicalreacharound:

Even conservatives and the Bush administration are finally admitting.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90LJ4BO2&show_article=1

May 14, 2008 - 12:28 pm Boris:

Michael,

Ah, I see. You are a conspiracy theorist too. Gotcha.

May 14, 2008 - 12:32 pm Ratatosk:

Actually there were WMDs found in Iraq. Yes, they weren’t as numerous as some pre-war estimates, but they did exist. Saddam did use them against the Kurds.

Certainty is easy when one ignores all conflicting data.

Precisely my point.

There is not nearly enough data to reliably determine anything about Global Warming in a certain manner. I am of the opinion that Al Gore’s ’slam dunk’ and George Tenant’s ’slam dunk’ are of the same game. However, so is abject naysaying by less than informed random people. Experts were wrong on WMD’s… yet lots of idiots and assholes weighed in on THE FACTS, which oddly supported their particularly view of reality. The same thing is happening now, here and at DailyKOS, in these comments and at Green Peace.

Some evidence points to Global Warming, just as some evidence pointed to WMD’s. Some evidence contradicts current popular claims about global warming, some evidence contradicted the popular claims about WMD’s. Feel free to pat each other on the back and think you Know The Truth… just note the company you keep in such certainty.

Or produce some evidence that any of you are any more qualified to speak about global warming, than Cindy Sheehan is to discuss Foreign Intelligence.

May 14, 2008 - 12:33 pm Ratatosk:

If I were to look for… say the latest numbers on the Iraqi death toll and I were to find a paper which was written by “The 2008 Council on Iraqi Death Count” or some other official sounding group, it would be interesting. However, if it was drastically higher than every other body count… if it stated in certitudes what other reports did not… if the names of the attendees were George Soros, Arianna Huffington, Al Gore and Al Frankin… then I would seriously question the usefulness of the data. Sure it ‘could’ be correct, but only if we didn’t go see Occam for a shave.

So, when I hear “Here’s a devastating new report on Global Warming” I do the same thing… I see who made the claims and what claims they made.

So I took a look at “The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change” which sounds just spiffy… but then I find that they state in no uncertain terms that the whole issue is concluded and done. Case closed. I find myself wondering what great and wondrous people made such a fantastic discovery.

So, we begin to search:
David Archibald: Known vocal opponent to Global Warming. He produced a paper a couple years back which was, according to a number of experts… crap. For example, his worldwide statistics were based, not on data collections from around the world, but from 5 rural stations in the Southeast US. Maybe this is valid… but then maybe Dennis Kuchinich is a reasonable choice for President too…

J. Scott Armstrong: Took a minute to find this specialist… since he’s a professor of marketing and has no scieney/meteorological training that I can find. again, he could be right… but so could Al Gore, as they both appear equally qualified.

Now, I’m not gonna fill up this page with names and descriptions… but suffice to say that more than a few of the people listed as signatories to this official sounding document, either work for think tanks that are specifically conservative in nature or have a history of saying “NO Climate Problems” even when the data appeared to support it… or the people are Marketing people, policy people etc.

Now, some of the people appear to actually be experts and they may have real and useful arguments… just as someone in 2002 may have had a real and useful argument regarding the exaggerated threat of WMD’s. However, the company they keep makes me far more concerned about them getting fleas, rather than putting stock in their claims.

May 14, 2008 - 12:56 pm rvastar:

I’ll respond to your post when you provide proof that Gore or Hansen said that temps will rise every year.

IOW, BIAB, he has no response…much like the rest of the MMGW alarmists.

Want to know the easiest way to tell that MMGW is a fraud? Simple…it’s the fact that the alarmists are absolutely terrified of publically debating the issue with skeptics. It’s funny…they use intimidation, they use ridicule, they use name-calling; but do you notice how they refuse to use the oldest, most reliable method for arguing the merits of a proposition to the public: a good, old-fashioned DEBATE OF THE ISSUE?

If MMGW is real, and it’s the incredible threat to mankind that supporters claim it is, then why are they so afraid of standing in front the public - with an equal number of skeptics being present on the same stage - and defending their claims?

The answer is obvious. They’re deathly afraid of results like this.

An excerpt:

In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 PERCENT AGREED with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Thus, in the span of 1 hour, the percentage who believed that MMGW is being over-hyped jumped 16% points, from nearly one-third to nearly one-half of attendees.

FACT: Global temperatures have been falling since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level.

Hmmm…isn’t that weird? I thought that “warming” meant that the temperatures were going up. Oh, well!

FACT: The 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

Wow! Man-made climate change sure is powerful stuff! It can travel back in time now!

FACT: 95% of the “greenhouse effect” is caused by water vapor. Less than 4% is caused by carbon dioxide. And here’s the real kicker: of that 4%, human activity is responsible for only 3% of the total carbon dioxide concentration in atmosphere…mother nature provides the rest.

GRAND TOTAL: HUMAN ACTIVITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLY 0.28% OF THE GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE!!!

Run for the hills! The end is nigh! Save us Goracle!!!

Don’t believe the hype, people.

May 14, 2008 - 1:04 pm Huh?:

Good point, Ratatosk. This same criteria must be applied to the pro-warming folks as well. When will any of you be honest enough to do that?

May 14, 2008 - 1:05 pm Boris is a bonehead:

Look, Boris - there’s nothing you can do to hurt me. I laugh at you. You make you look stupid.

Next, the IPCC (co-Nobel laureate with the Goracle if I’m not mistaken) told everyone with certainty that the global temp would go up over 0.3 deg. C in the next decade.

And you know the IPCC was selective in their data choices. Didn’t include little things like El Nino or the Gulf Stream. Tell me you didn’t know that.

May 14, 2008 - 1:17 pm Smartie:

Ratatosk - please pass on your own credentials for us to see.

I guess in your world, Leonardo DeCaprio is an intellectual heavyweight.

May 14, 2008 - 1:18 pm Lola:

Remember the Middle Ages do you? The Church selling pardons? As in buy this piece of paper and you WILL go to Heaven. Well, we are here again. This time the hysteria is Climate Change replacing Fear of God and Eternal Damnation. People need a Faith. No Faith? Something will turn up to fill the gap and along with it every commercial preacher and snake oil salesman looking to make a quid or grab some power. So next time you buy a carbon offset voucher when you buy an airticket, remember the Pardoner’s Tale.

May 14, 2008 - 1:47 pm Thanos:

When liberals get in trouble in an argument they change the subject to WMDs.

Guess what? The new mantra is:

“Gore Lied! People Died!”

http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/?p=2189

May 14, 2008 - 1:50 pm Boris:

BiaB,

It’s simple: you are a liar. You said Gore and Hansen said that the temperature would go up every year and yet you cannot find proof. The reason you haven’t provided proof yet is because you are lying. There is no proof.

Are you going to let a liberal like me show you up to be a liar? I’m sure the proof will be forthcoming.

May 14, 2008 - 2:01 pm Ratatosk:

This same criteria must be applied to the pro-warming folks as well. When will any of you be honest enough to do that?

Err, I do apply it to the pro-warming folks… and I find that many of them may have ulterior motives for believing what they believe as well.

LET ME BE CLEAR: I have no idea if Global Warming is True of False, or both (happening in some sense, but all of the science is currently bunk). I am NOT a physicist, not weather expert, I’ve never been to the North Pole, nor have I been to the Sahara. But, see… neither are most of the people commenting here. THAT IS THE POINT. Look at some of these posts smugly asserting that Global Warming is not true because of an idiotic website, which appears more as a shill for propaganda than honest science! The posters here appear to have done nothing more than a quick google search to find words that support their view of the issue. That’s no different than Iraq Body Count cherry picking data to support their nonsense.

I have no problem saying “I don’t know” when it comes to the issue of Global Warming… just as I said “I don’t know” when it came to Iraq and WMD’s. That, my friend, is honesty. What’s going on here is just validation for world view that may be right or wrong, without being bothered by honesty, truth or objectivity.

May 14, 2008 - 2:02 pm David:

More like Gore lied, the working and lower middle classes spending power died…

I saw a very effective presentation by an Australian scientist who was involved in deep sea bore analysis over an extended period, this presentation sank the global warming lie without trace.

The truth is that the Global Waming crowd have hedges their bets by changing the name to climate change, it proves that it is rubbish…

May 14, 2008 - 2:14 pm Jeb:

formerly known as global warming alarmism until it became apparent a few years back that the globe had in fact stopped warming, and the alarmists decided that the term “climate change” was a more effective way of describing what the rest of us call “weather.”

First, in the scientific literature it has been consistently called global climate change since, though global average temperatures are rising, climate change effects different regions differently and climatic factors other than temperature are included (ex/ rainfall).
Second, climate ≠ weather.

A sizable minority of scientists has for years been disputing the basic science behind climate change alarmism (you can find a list of 400 leading “skeptics” here),

The list used there was compiled by Dennis Avery at the Heartland Institute/Hudson Institute. He did not consult with most of the scientists before including their names on his list and determined for himself that he felt their research supported some part of his position. After the list was published several of the scientist have sought to have their names removed from the list to no avail. Others were entirely unaware of their inclusion. Kevin DeGrandia (desmogblog) emailed 122 of the scientists on the list and quickly received 45 responses outraged that they were included on the list. Here are a few of their responses,

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.

Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.

Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.

Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!

Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

I’m outraged that they’ve included me as an “author” of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary.

Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

The bulk of the listed scientists are either from unrelated fields, do not discount the science of global climate change(but the hyperbole of some less informed advocates), or disagree entirely with what their names have been attached to without their permission. This listing is blatently dishonest.

Climate is always changing, they pointed out, and there’s no such thing as an “ideal” temperature for the planet.

No, but there are ideal climates for particular organisms. Radical changes in climate have resulted in radical changes in the survival of adapted organisms.

A recent survey exposed the extent of bias among news programs on the three main U.S. networks: just one-fifth of stories about climate change featured opinions that dissented

Which represents proportionally more dissent than is present in the scientific community, particularly the climate science community. How much TV time should be alloted to disputing the link between cigarette smoking and cancer?

In February of this year a raft of data from the leading monitoring centers showed that average global temperatures had fallen by around 0.65º C, effectively canceling out the recent 30-year warming trend

One year or 5 does not establish or “cancel out” a trend. There are many factors at play determining climate, CO2 is one, La Niña/El Niño is another.

Dozens of studies have shown that the production of most biofuels causes more harm to the environment than the fuels themselves save, while the turning over of agricultural land from food production to growing crops for fuel is driving up food prices around the world.

Turning food crops into fuel is a boondoggle, but other biofuels show much promise. Both mixed prairie grasses and algae show much higher yields, greater efficiencies, and do not require displacing food crops.
BTW high food prices have more to do with subsidies paid to keep productive farm land fallow than misguided corn to fuel programs.

British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained nine factual errors

The judge also said that the film was “broadly accurate,” idnetified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC,” and agreed “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The 9 errors were 9 overstatements. These were largely confined to stating global warming as the cause of an event when it was more likely a cause of that event (ex/ the snows of Kilamanjaro melting).

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that precisely zero per cent of Americans — yes, zero, that’s not a typo — rated global warming as the most important issue in the upcoming presidential election.

Might that have something to do with the near unanimity of opinion on the subject by the remaining candidates?
Some more results from that same question from that ABC/WaPo poll,

Morals/Family
values 2
Abortion 1
Foreign policy 1
Environment *
Federal budget
deficit *
Housing/Mortgages *
Social Security *
Taxes *
Guns/Gun control *
Global warming 0
Iran/Situation
in Iran 0
None/Nothing *

Social Security, taxes, gun control, Iran, and the budget deficit also got nothing. Does that mean that Americans do not care about these issues, or that they are 2nd, 3rd or 4th place issues behind the war in Iraq or some other concern?
[commenter responses]

So PRA - did you actually read any of the linked SCIENTIFIC articles? Are you aware of how science works? Let me give you a hint - it’s got nothing to do with “consensus”, although there’s anything but consensus about global warming, and even less about anthropogenic global warming.

I have and I have worked closely with climate modelers. Consensus does not determine how any particular experiment will work out. Consensus by the people studying a particular phenomenon is an indicator of what the current data suggests. There is a broad consensus withing the general scientific community and broad and deep consensus among climate scientists that the global climate is warming and that anthropogenic factors are at least partly responsible. I will reiterate a challenge I have made dozens of times:
I will produce 10 articles (published in a peer reviewed scientific journal since 2000) to your one that support the hypothesis of anthropogenically caused global climate change for any one you find that refutes it. I have yet to be sent a single one.
One article with a definitive refutation would be sufficient to change my opinion, but none has as yet been published.

Oh, and here’s a paper, with lots of evidence predicting climate out 30 years - it’s cooling. Lots of real science to back that to. Argue with him. This is a PDF link.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

that is well responded to here.

To claim that the vast majority of scientist and a greater majority of climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax is just silly as is the name calling, stick to the evidence. If the evidence were as strong and widespread as some here would like to believe it should have been published in a reputable journal by now. If you have the data to prove that global climate change is not happening or that there is not anthropogenic causation, publish and do it in a peer reviewed journal.

May 14, 2008 - 2:17 pm Michael:

Conspiracy theorist. Nice label. No, I just see where people’s self interest can cloud their judgment.

By the way, I am sorry about throwing the L word around. Nothing like being hoist on my own petard. hehe

May 14, 2008 - 2:37 pm Rob Crawford:

“Global warming, if it exists is a new phenomena, its been observed for only a few years and the data and models seem iffy at best.”

Actually, no, it’s not a new phenomena. There have been much warmer periods in recorded history. The Medieval Climate Optimum and the Roman Warm Period are two.

But you’re right that the data and models for anthropogenic climate change are iffy at best.

May 14, 2008 - 2:54 pm dan:

Anyone who believes “global warming” is crisis or any other kind of issue is Scum.

How did you idiots miss the pornography addiction train your minds are so clearly designed to succumb to? Go thou! Get a new hobby, and shut up.

May 14, 2008 - 2:55 pm Night Owl:

Some diabolically clever, P.T. Barnum-esque boomer geniuses figured out how to make money off of liberal guilt, through the carbon credits scam, and a new “science” is born.

We can’t even accurately predict a single hurricane season and I’m to believe the junk stats from the global warming alarmists? The historical climate and temperature record is spotty and incomplete, especially on a global scale. Any models based on it are no more predictive than astrology. And for all we know we might be in another mini ice age if it weren’t for our burning fossil fuels.

It should rightly raise some red flags whenever people start making claims that the “discussion is over” and “all experts agree”. We humans are never quite as stupid as when we think we know it all.

May 14, 2008 - 3:01 pm Adrian Peirson:

There has always been changes in Temp, currently the earth is rather cool by historical standards.

I note that Temperatures on Mars are similarly rising, scientists say that the sun is outputting more energy.

Are we to blame for global warming in mars too.

It’s a Tax scam.

May 14, 2008 - 3:10 pm HRPKathy:

Ratatosk,
Doesn’t it irritate you that those shoving Global Warming down your throat as a fact are doing so to extract money from you in the form of taxation and increased utility bills? Those who you claim are equally bad because they want more proof only tax your disposition, they stay out of your purse. That must earn some good will - unless you aren’t as divided on the issue as you state.

John McCain has surrendered my vote and the votes of other conservatives on an issue that has zero priority in the electorate. This man isn’t smart enough to be president.

And can someone explain to me how cap and trade does anything but endorse the rob peter to pay paul policy? Being incapable of affecting anything except the hobbling of the individual is a glaring flaw in this solution.

The number one step in salesmanship: Establish the need. If advocates are calling for more taxes, more regulation, more government, they must establish the need for it. Enter global warming. Problems arose when global warming wasn’t global. Later it became increasingly obvious that it isn’t warming either.

Heaven help our lying eyes and those big utility bills.

May 14, 2008 - 3:17 pm Mark:

Most of you are idiots when it comes to understanding new fuel sources. It takes 3x as much energy to make ethanol than fosil fuels. which means in the long run you’re causing more problems than solving them. As usualy, the Left never looks at the big picture when its trying to save us “unwashed masses” from ourselves.

May 14, 2008 - 3:24 pm Thanos:

I’m sorry - changing the time scale for your graphs does not refute the argument, neither does picking out grammtical errors. The hypothesis is that industrial pollution has caused the problem is it not? Why go back to the 1700’s? You could as well go back to the hypocene if you insist looking long cycle, and guess what? The effect is proved out.

Can you refute his argument about solar cycles and the apparent cooling cycle we are headed into? No I did not think so.

May 14, 2008 - 3:25 pm John Samford:

Global warming is religion, NOT science;

Here is a site covering both sides of the debate;

http://climatedebatedaily.com/
I have found it to be a waste of time arguing, since The GW scaremongers are religious fanatics and no amount of logic nor evidence will change their mind. When they drop dead of a stroke caused by shoveling snow off their drvieway in Miami 40 years from now, they will still believe in global warmimg.

May 14, 2008 - 3:28 pm Thanos:

Jeb

It also amazes me that you think you debunked something written and updated with more evidence in March 2008 back in February 2007. You MMGW proponents certainly do have quite the Karnak hats, should we all scrape at your feet and say we aren’t worthy or something?

May 14, 2008 - 3:47 pm BiaB:

From RealClimate:

At Jim Hansen’s now famous congressional testimony given in the hot summer of 1988, he showed GISS model projections of continued global warming assuming further increases in human produced greenhouse gases. This was one of the earliest transient climate model experiments and so rightly gets a fair bit of attention when the reliability of model projections are discussed.

In the original 1988 paper, three different scenarios were used A, B, and C. … The details varied for each scenario, but the net effect of all the changes was that Scenario A assumed exponential growth in forcings, Scenario B was roughly a linear increase in forcings, and Scenario C was similar to B, but had close to constant forcings from 2000 onwards.

…

Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a ‘precise assessment’ of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can’t be challenged.

Oh, snap!

May 14, 2008 - 3:49 pm Whitehall:

The telling point of “Inconvenient Truth” was that Gore never mentioned the one viable energy source that could serve his cause - nuclear power. He never uttered the word although he did provide an image of a nuclear explosion. Pretty obvious propaganda to me.

McCain endorsed “climate change” so that he could collect big campaign contributions from businesses that stood to gain from the cap and trade schemes. Note Carly Fiornia’s efforts on his behalf - she’ll be hitting up the Kleiner, Perkins crowd for money for McCain amongst others.

May 14, 2008 - 4:32 pm Jeb:

It also amazes me that you think you debunked something written and updated with more evidence in March 2008 back in February 2007.

Nothing new of substance was added to his 2006 paper in his 2008 presentation. A debunking of the original suffices for the repetition.
The grammatical quibbles where merely to point out the lack of review and editing. The debunking goes far beyond what you describe. For example,

Archibald then decides to predict what the temperature response to solar cycles 24 and 25 will be. To do this he first hypothesizes that temperature is responding to solar cycle amplitude (in this case, the number of sunspots per year). Instead of 5 meteorological stations, this time he decides to use only 1, De Bilt in the Netherlands!

Archibald produces this strange graph, with only 1 data point per solar cycle verses average annual temperature. A liner regression (I’m assuming) is performed, but there is no mention of the slope of the line or its R^2 value. Ignoring this, Archibald claims:

“By expanding the time interval studied to 1705 to 2003, a good correlation of temperature and solar cycle amplitude is evident. This is shown in Figure 4 which demonstrates a correlation between solar cycle amplitude and annual average temperature at de bilt, Netherlands.”

Here’s the thing, temperature data for De Bilt and sunspot data are available are available for every year from 1705. Why not see if they correlate? Here’s why:

The correlation is very weak (the slope of the line) and the predicative value of the model is also very weak (the R^2) value. Unsurprisingly, it shows that other factors are more important in driving temperature in De Bilt.

Why go back to the 1700’s?

Because Archibald chose that time scale and reliable annual data is available for both sunspot activity and temperature at this location (and many others). Archibald leaves out other stations that do not match his assertion and even leaves out data from the one station he chooses to use because it does not match his assertion. When all the data is used the correlation is extraordinarily weak. In short he has no credibility.

May 14, 2008 - 5:11 pm Waller:

To claim that weather prediction and climate prediction are different beasts is nonsense. The only trump card that climate scientists rely on is CO2 forced warming. This is the “bad” science that us “idiots” do not buy, because the evidence just does not exist.

Take away your CO2 “magic bullet” and climate prediction goes out the window. By the way, I was in college in 1990 just hearing about global warming. Computer models said we would be 2 degrees warmers by now. Didn’t happen. It’s like a doomsday cult. Just change the prediction and hope no one remembers the old ones.

May 14, 2008 - 5:19 pm Rational Animal:

First, Jeb, it proves nothing if some scientists complain that their data is used to contradict their opinion. Indeed, if the contradictory conclusions from this data are true, it would only show how biased these scientists are.

Second, you can call a factual error an overstatement or an understatemet, it doesnt change the fact, that an factual error is a factual error. And Gores film is full of these errors. Many arguments that he tries to make are infact based on an “overstatement”, as you call it.

Third, just because a majority of learned people believe something, does not make it true, especially if the belief is also used to pursue political motives. Or was Galileo Galilei wrong just because he was in the minority? Fact is, nobody has the scientific means to prove how the weather will be in 10 years (there isnt even a reliable weather forecast for the next month), nor can anybody prove what the consequences of a severe climate change would be.

Fourthly, civilization has taken its path, and there will be no reductions in CO2 unless our civilization stops all progress, and goes bakc to the bronze age, and reduces therby most of the population to utter poverty. And, if CO2 is so bad, why just dont eradicate every living being on the planet, then there would be no evil CO2 emittents.

I just do not believe that Nature, of which the human race is just one part, is trying to kill itself.

May 14, 2008 - 5:20 pm freetoken:

The author has simply compiled a list of straw-men and red-herrings and demonstrated that while he is very good at polemics he is also very poor at science (or perhaps he is just be deceiving.)

Note his choice to only reference “alarmists” rather than “scientists”. What, are you afraid of actually venturing into the scientific literature?

Note also his choice of picking on ethanol - as if the US mandate for ethanol use arose out of any concern for CO2. (Truth is simply that ethanol use grew as an agriculture policy, then later endorsed as an energy security policy.)

As an essay the author muddles the actual science, then the policy decisions that will/must be made to address both climate change and other issues. Perhaps Lomborg is correct on how to spend money to deal with issues, but that hasn’t as much to do with how much CO2 causes climate change, rather that the ROI for the funds available dictate one of the many other environmental issues gets addressed first.

It is so sad to see a display of polemics being dressed up as either a discussion of science, or even of policy.

Would the author be willing to actually engage in a discussion of science and policy, rather than simply to vent against Al Gore?

May 14, 2008 - 6:17 pm Jeb:

To claim that weather prediction and climate prediction are different beasts is nonsense.

No, to claim they are the same displays a lack of understanding. Though it may be counter intuitive, it is often far easier to predict large scale phenomena than smaller scale phenomena. For example, we cannot predict where a single drop of water entering the Gulf Stream off the coast of Georgia today will be in a month or a year. We can however quite accurately predict where the average drop of water now in the Gulf Stream off the coast of Georgia will be in a month, a year, or further in the future.

First, Jeb, it proves nothing if some scientists complain that their data is used to contradict their opinion.

No, but it does mean something if a scientists work is said to mean one thing and the scientist who produced the work indicates that it means something else entirely.

Second, you can call a factual error an overstatement or an understatemet, it doesnt change the fact, that an factual error is a factual error. And Gores film is full of these errors. Many arguments that he tries to make are infact based on an “overstatement”, as you call it.

Depends on your definition of many I guess. I would call nine several. Most of those nine were attributing a change solely to climate change when climate change was but one factor (Kilamanjaro etc.). The others were matters of positing worst case scenarios. Sea levels will not likely rise 7m in the next hundred years (that is at the outside edge of predictions).
It was a flawed movie and is not the place to get your science, but I have yet to see a movie that is a good place to get your science.

Third, just because a majority of learned people believe something, does not make it true

No, but it is a good indicator of where the evidence currently available points.

Or was Galileo Galilei wrong just because he was in the minority?

Gallileo was not persecuted by other scientists and it was not other scientists that said he was wrong (at least not without prompting from the Church).

Fact is, nobody has the scientific means to prove how the weather will be in 10 years (there isnt even a reliable weather forecast for the next month)

Once again weather is not climate. If it rains tomorrow that is a change in the weather not a change in the climate.

Fourthly, civilization has taken its path, and there will be no reductions in CO2 unless our civilization stops all progress, and goes bakc to the bronze age

That is only potentially true if technology remains static.

I just do not believe that Nature, of which the human race is just one part, is trying to kill itself.

Anthropomorphizing nature leads to muddied thinking. “Nature” does not have motives. Man has motives and more often than we like or motives for actions and the results of those actions are at odds. That said, I do not think that any climate change we are at all likely to see will eliminate humans. We will survive (though perhaps less comfortably) and the world will survive (though perhaps with far less biodiversity).

May 14, 2008 - 8:35 pm Waller:

Climate and weather perdiction are exactly the same in that thay are enormously complex systems involving a multitude of variables. Changing one or more inputs completely changes the results. Also if weighting factors are off even a small amount, the accumulation of error will render the prediction useless. That’s why early climate models are so far off and new models constantly need to be made (or old ones tweaked).

The bottom line is that both the climatologist and the meteorologist suffer the same problems - too little data, too little understanding of the data, and unpredicted variables entering the equations.

Meteorologists, of course, have to explain why they were wrong a day, week, or month down the road. A somewhat humbling experience, I imagine.

Climatologists, on the other hand, are disingenuous enough that they know that they won’t have to answer to anyone for decades - long enough to publish a few papers and enjoy a nice career. Now that’s luxury when you’re in the forecasting business. What arrogance!

To say one can predict the climate when we can’t predict the weather IS outrageous. You can correct me when climatology has established a track record - say in about 100 years.

I’m sorry, but I understand this far better than you think I do. Ask an engineer what happens when his data is just a little off or he forgot to account for something in the design.

May 14, 2008 - 10:09 pm Eddie:

Mike McNally: “In February of this year a raft of data from the leading monitoring centers showed that average global temperatures had fallen by around 0.65º C…”

The “raft of data” does not in fact link to “leading monitoring centers”, rather to a blog which displays a graph captioned: “World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.”

This graph is in turn sourced from yet another blog, which has no connection with the original data used to create the graph and apparently sourced from The Met Office Hadley Centre in the UK, one of the four main sources for climate data. So what does the Hadley Centre have to say about 2007?

“The provisional global figure, using data from January to November, currently places 2007 as the seventh warmest on record since 1850.”

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20071213.html

The other six years in order are: 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006. In addition, the centre says that “…the top 11 warmest years all occur in the last 13 years”.

In other words, the atmosphere has not ‘cooled’. Far from it. It has reached the highest recorded levels and shows no signs of falling back.

Beginning with the title, this article is a hack job, linked to like-minded hack jobs. It has little connection to the data as detailed on the sites of the organisations that are actually doing climate science.

May 15, 2008 - 3:38 am Dan McDonald:

This is a good article. I often compare today’s global climate change fearmongers with my experiences as a religious man in the 1970’s as some of us were drawn into the “Late Great Planet Earth” theology. The characteristics of the believers whether in a “last days theology” or in the pseudo-science hype of the global warming believers are rather similar. We both believed in some form of “special knowledge” that the unbeliever simply did not understand, bascially because we were the righteous and enlightened while they were the sinners and selfish. In both cases mounting evidence to the contrary did nothing to shake the faith of the true believer in their belief. In both views, there was at the foundation of their belief a view that we were a special group of people with a special knowledge about a special and unique time that threatened catastrophe upon the earth. Perhaps Al Gore, a lifetime Southern Baptist, was especially prone to thinking in such terms because many Southern Baptists accepted the “last days now theology”. He did not accept that line of thinking because he was more scientific than the often unscientific “last days now proponents.” But there is no reason men of science cannot chase hyped up catastrophic philosophies now tendencies, as do those of a more religious mindset. In the long run, I think this will be the lesson of the Global Warming view. When it is discredited, it will be used to remind us that there is great need to beware of fearmongering whether in science, religion, or politics. Humanity is driven by hope and fear, and we can get suckered in by extremes of either.

May 15, 2008 - 3:47 am MarkW:

That’s right, the icecaps aren’t melting. The Arctic cap did melt, but even NASA was forced to admit that the one year melting was due to a change in circulation patterns, not a warmer world. That melting has since reversed.

The Antarctic last year, set a record for the amount of ice. And this year looks like it could be another record.

Greenland. Also growing.

Why don’t you stop insulting everyone who disagrees with you, and learn a little science.

May 15, 2008 - 5:06 am Doctor Splakes:

I stopped reading as soon as I saw politicalreacharound get owned and then (rather embarrassingly) resort to using the Iraq War to try to claw back ground.

Very poor effort PRA. Take ALL of your criticisms of the rationally thinking, scientifically minded sceptics, direct those same criticisms precisely at yourself and go and sit in the corner. You dunce.

May 15, 2008 - 5:29 am Boris:

“By the way, I was in college in 1990 just hearing about global warming. Computer models said we would be 2 degrees warmers by now.”

This is just nonsense. No model predicted 2 degs in twenty years. But if you have a citation to prove it….

Do you see the pattern? People either believe in a conspiracy or they make some claim that isn’t true and they cannot back up. This is why no one is listening to you guys anymore. You are full of it.

May 15, 2008 - 5:44 am Boris:

BiaB,

“he showed GISS model projections of continued global warming assuming further increases in human produced greenhouse gases.”

Is this supposed to be proof that Hansen said temperature would go up “every year.” Because that is clearly not what he says.

The lies continue. What a shocker.

May 15, 2008 - 5:47 am Rational Animal:

@Jeb:
“Once again weather is not climate.”

But this distinction is not essential to the argument.
“Climate, conditions of the atmosphere at a particular location over a long period of time.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106248/climate
“Weather, state of the atmosphere at a particular place during a short period of time.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9076362/weather

It surely is harder to predict something over a long period of time, than over a short period. If someone cannot reliably predict something over a short period, do you think he is more able to do it over a long period? Surely not!

Jeb: “Depends on your definition of many I guess.”
In any case more than 50%.

Jeb: “Gallileo was not persecuted by other scientists”

Its not about persecution. Its about opinion and truth. Most people of his time, and many learned men among them, considered him wrong. But to take another example, just consider the aether theory or the caloric theory, which were quite in vogue among reputable scientist for some time. My point is, a majority consensus about any thing means nothing, if no one has the ability to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Jeb: “Anthropomorphizing nature leads to muddied thinking.”

Lets put it another way. That humanity is able to severely harm itself is against the most basic laws of living nature: The Law of Self Preservation, and the Law of Preservation of the Species. These laws were established beyond reasonable doubt a long time ago, and are true in more than 99,9% of the cases. I do not think that the feeble evidence and the even more feeble conclusions of climatologist are enough to establish a contradiction to these laws.

May 15, 2008 - 6:18 am Ratatosk:

No, lack of thinking for oneself and a complete unwillingness to say “I don’t know” pretty much pisses me off no matter which idiotic humans are doing it.

I have no love of socialist concepts, I’m of the opinion that the best government is a very small one. Yet, the more exposure I have to the complete cognitive dissonance of both parties, the more I realize that the size of the government doesn’t matter, if the people are all mad.

May 15, 2008 - 7:43 am Jeb:

But this distinction is not essential to the argument…It surely is harder to predict something over a long period of time, than over a short period. If someone cannot reliably predict something over a short period, do you think he is more able to do it over a long period? Surely not!

Yes it is. Again, it may be counterintuitive but it is far easier to predict long term averages over time than to predict transitory states at a particular place at a particular moment. The example of the drop of water in the Gulf Stream is illustrative of this.

Jeb: “Depends on your definition of many I guess.”
In any case more than 50%.

Far less than half and the major thesis was correct as the judge in the case noted.

Its not about persecution. Its about opinion and truth. Most people of his time, and many learned men among them, considered him wrong.

Where Galileo was correct the other prominent physicists of his day among them Kepler, de Soto, and Descartes agreed. It was the Church that disputed and suppressed the science and it was the Church that prevented widespread support. The scientists who studied the phenomena were far closer to the truth than was the general populace under the sway of the Church.

That humanity is able to severely harm itself is against the most basic laws of living nature: The Law of Self Preservation, and the Law of Preservation of the Species.

What people do or do not do to preserve themselves greatly depends upon the quality of information they possess. History is littered with examples of people and other organisms (many no longer with us) with poor information acting a way that ensured their destruction. To assume that we will inherently act in a way that will best preserve us is religious thinking.

May 15, 2008 - 8:09 am fatfrog:

It has been proved by science that the Glob has warmed since the last ice age. It warmed up a lot to melt mile thick glaciers. There were no factories, no SUV’s. The warming was not man-made.

Climate change is still NOT man made.

The climate change terror is a sales method, to TAX the producers of the world, and move wealth to the already wealthy.

How can you put the polar bear on the endangerd species list when the numbers have increased in the last 40 years???? Madness.

May 15, 2008 - 8:41 am Russell:

A good scientist trys to prove his theory wrong in order to prove it right. If he is able to prove it wrong he rejects the theory. A bad scientist trys to prove his theory right and rejects any evidence that proves it wrong. Guess which type of science we buy with $4 billion in research grants?

May 15, 2008 - 9:07 am Waller:

“This is just nonsense. No model predicted 2 degs in twenty years. But if you have a citation to prove it….”

Of course I don’t have documentation. That was pre-internet even (far the most part). I remember it being thrown at me in scare presentations. I remember the number because I thought it was unbelievable even then. Instead of jumping on the alarmist bandwagon, it made me skeptical. I have been following GW closely every since and have watched the alarmists change time frames, temperatures, and ecological consequences in the last 18 years. I have seen almost everything (emotionalism, guilt, name-calling, demonization) from the climate group except really good science. It’s hard to find anything now but the latest computer predictions.

As for “no model predicted 2 degrees”, do you even know how climate modeling is achieved? There are models which predict no warming in 50 years and models that predict 5 degrees or more in 50 years. Climatologists do statistical analysis to determine which models are closest to the an average of the models and they go with these. The different models are needed to analyze different weighting factors and adding or subtracting variables. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE CLIMATE MECHANISMS INTERACT.

Additionally, each model is run multiple times because each run gives slightly different results. After so many iterations a most likely statistcal probability emerges. That’s for each model. By the way, that’s how the weather people make their forecasts too. So saying that weather and climate are different may be true in reality. But in the virtual world, they are forecasted the same way.

May 15, 2008 - 9:23 am politicalreacharound:

Global warming deniers- get over it you lost! Even McCain understands it after he turned up his hearing aid and heard the data. Its over done. STFU! Intelligent people don’t believe your backwards explanations of what is going on. The majority has spoke

May 15, 2008 - 9:54 am Boris:

“It surely is harder to predict something over a long period of time, than over a short period.”

Really? Okay, you predict the temperature at noon in Chicago on June 1st and I’ll predict the average temperature in Chicago for June. Think you can get closer than me?

May 15, 2008 - 10:15 am Thanos:

Jeb:

You can decry the paper all you wish, but the facts are bearing the prediction out. Where are the sunspots friend? Where are they?

May 15, 2008 - 10:50 am rvastar:

STFU! Intelligent people don’t believe your backwards explanations of what is going on.

That’s really rich, PRA, coming from an idiot who hasn’t bothered to post ONE FACT to support your screeching!

Actually, your posts could serve as lecture material for demonstrating logical fallacies. Just a few examples:

Foreign countries (since they believe in global warming) respect the US more for taking the lead in solving the problem.

Example of RED HERRING, APPEAL TO POPULARITY…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

We get to give our kids a better, cleaner world and its profitable.

Example of RED HERRING, APPEAL TO EMOTION, APPEAL TO FEAR…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

Are you all too lazy, wasteful and dense that you can’t understand that confronting climate change and environmental issues helps everyone?

Example of RED HERRING, STRAW MAN, APPEAL TO EMOTION, APPEAL TO RIDICULE…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

Conservatives buy into the argument that if there is a 1% chance of WMDs in Iraq than we must go to war. Yet if there is a 99% chance global warming is happening we shouldn’t do anything until every last person is convinced. Genius, and by genius I mean you are all not very smart.

Example of RED HERRING, STRAW MAN, AD HOMINEM, APPEAL TO RIDICULE…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

It means you’re idiots, which is why the educated can be so condescending to you.

Example of RED HERRING, STRAW MAN, AD HOMINEM, APPEAL TO POPULARITY, APPEAL TO EMOTION, APPEAL TO RIDICULE…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

Even conservatives and the Bush administration are finally admitting.

Example of RED HERRING, APPEAL TO POPULARITY…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

Even McCain understands it after he turned up his hearing aid and heard the data.

Example of RED HERRING, APPEAL TO POPULARITY, APPEAL TO RIDICULE…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

Intelligent people don’t believe your backwards explanations of what is going on.

Example of RED HERRING, AD HOMINEM, APPEAL TO POPULARITY, APPEAL TO RIDICULE, APPEAL TO EMOTION…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

The majority has spoke

Example of RED HERRING, APPEAL TO POPULARITY, and BAD GRAMMAR…and completely irrelevant as regards the truth or falsity of MMGW.

Taking into account your weakness at advancing relevant arguments, PRA, I’d suggest you refrain from questioning the intelligence of others.

Here’s a piece of advice - free of charge: next time your parent’s deposit money into your bank account, walk down to your Student Book Store and buy a book on Critical Thinking.

May 15, 2008 - 11:01 am Jeb:

Of course I don’t have documentation. That was pre-internet even (far the most part).

Virtually all of the scientific literature has since been made available online. If it was published it is almost certainly out there. You could at least give the names and institutions of the people you say made these claims.

You can decry the paper all you wish, but the facts are bearing the prediction out.

As the link I provided showed the evidence when all of it is included did not and do not bear out his predictions. He was highly selective in the temperature data he chose to include and if a more complete data set is used the correlation is no longer significant. If sunspot activity were the primary mover in climate change global average temperatures would have been dropping since the mid 1980s. Read Lockwood and Fröhlich.

May 15, 2008 - 11:31 am RockyMtnHigh:

Don’t know…don’t care. I live in the North. A little warming would be nice.

The only green Uncle Al cares about is in his wallet. If any one has any good ideas on how to make a few quick bucks off this “science” count me in.

May 15, 2008 - 12:09 pm Waller:

Jeb,

Since you’re playing the “gotcha” game,YOU find me links to actual climate model predictions made 20 years ago (unaltered,dated), showing ANY temperature predictions for 2005,2010,2015,etc. I bet they’re harder to find than you claim. Even then, I’m sure the “2 degree” models will be conveniently absent and only the ones that came close to being accurate will be available. Call me a cynic, but IMO it’s doubtful that anyone will re-publish their failed predictions on the internet.

I don’t have source material but I still have a memory. I remember that Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory because Saddam Hussein’s WMD production had to be stopped. Try sourcing that. You’ll find it - but not readily. You can believe me or not about the 2 degrees, it’s irrelevant. My point being that the crisis point has been pushed back for twenty years and is STILL continuing to be pushed back as the climate refuses to agree with the models.

I trust my memory far more than I trust people with an agenda. The references to WMD in this post and elsewhere in this thread proves that point. Climate model predictions are constantly changing and the climatologists lock the old models up in the cellar like a deformed baby and hope no one remembers what they said 5 years ago.

May 15, 2008 - 4:10 pm Carroll:

I don’t particularly care about ‘Climate Change’ when I see the immediate impact of policies so far… Third world families struggling. So far the only thing that seems to have been accomplished by saving the planet is making families pay for it by hiking the price of wheat.

Underneath the admonishments from politicians and scientists about how we need to save the planet there seems to lurk a far darker and more dangerous mood: anti Third Word sentiment. How dare China and India try to grow their economies and help their populations by burning coal. How dare poor families in Egypt actually try to feed their families with cheap imported wheat. Screw human life. Or should I say, “Screw human life that doesn’t live in the Western World.”

Of course, it’s perfectly fine to lecture other (poorer) countries about their wasteful ways because we in the West are clearly superior and didn’t spend the Industrial Revolution polluting every river in sight. And if some of ‘those’ people have to die to make it life pleasant for Westerners well… never mind.

My own prediction is that the same people who tell us we have to do our bit to save the world will be the same people complaining bitterly when actual polices impact their own lives in a very real and harsh way.

The Depression was probably the ultimate ‘green and healthy’ experience for many as they couldn’t really afford much of anything in the way of consumables (like gas for their car, or a house, or fatty calorie laden food) but I doubt anyone who lived through it would tell you how much they enjoyed it.

May 15, 2008 - 4:34 pm Jeb:

Since you’re playing the “gotcha” game,YOU find me links to actual climate model predictions made 20 years ago

You made the claim so it is up to you to back it up. You could at least give the name and institution of the person who you say made the claim or does your memory not include who said it?

I remember that Bill Clinton bombed an aspirin factory because Saddam Hussein’s WMD production had to be stopped. Try sourcing that. You’ll find it - but not readily.

I will assume here you are talking about the cruise missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant (correct me if I am incorrect in this assumption). This is easily and readily sourced (over 30,000 hits on Google including many news and opinion pieces and its own Wikipedia page). The rationale for the attack did not include Iraq, rather it was said to be linked to Bin Laden. If your memory of this incident and the climate lectures are of similar quality you’ll pardon me if I don’t take them at face value.

Underneath the admonishments from politicians and scientists about how we need to save the planet there seems to lurk a far darker and more dangerous mood: anti Third Word sentiment.

Now that’s just silly as is what follows.

May 15, 2008 - 5:43 pm Gordon andelin:

This is a question for Boris. Will you please explain why there was a cooling trend from the mid 1940′-1970’s. Also am curious if there is a proven technique for knowing when to start your data from…such as 1998 or 1000 AD. Seeing as how there is some disagreement in the climate world about the validity of the “Hockey Stick’, please don’t use i