Pajamas Media

66 Comments

1. fellow writer:

Excellent article. Thorough and spot-on. It’s refreshing!

Mar 6, 2009 - 11:27 pm 2. Trid:

I think it would be awesome for many authors to write a book debunking global warming written like this article. It’s informative, uses the Green freaks arguments against them, and best of all, it’s easy to read.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:40 am 3. Daddy Dave:

This is a good example of the problem.

The long-term historical data was once excellent evidence for the effect of CO2 on temperature, until it was shown that the data had been misinterpreted (both sides agree on this).

Beck’s basic message is that “this doesn’t refute global warming.”
That’s what he means by “allows for.” It’s in the same sense as “lack of footprints in the sand allows for the possibility that someone walked on this beach at some point.” He means that global warming is not conclusively disproved by the fact that CO2 lags not leads.

But in doing so, he’s pretending the skeptics raised this point, when it was the warming beleivers themselves who did. In fact, Al Gore used the ice core data in his film “An Inconvenient Truth” to prove that C02 causes warming. So at least from one standpoint, it is important for scientists to now say “everyone ignore the ice core data.”

Beck treats the ice core data as if it is a spurious skeptical talking point, something global warming deniers introduced into the discussion to sow confusion. But the ice core data is the exact opposite: it is a spurious global-warming-believer talking point that skeptics have been trying to expose.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:57 am 4. Class Clown:

I wrote something similar once before as a comment to a previous PJM article, but I’ll paraphrase myself now. I am not a scientist, I wouldn’t presume to have a scientific opinion about global warming. With that, I almost find myself hoping that it is true, because if it is not, the alternative explanation is that the scientific establishment has become ideologically compliant to the political Left. That is a frightening thing.

But while I may not be a scientist, I do know something of religion. I’m a religious person myself, and I know full well the difference between healthy faith that affirms life, breeds charity, and demands thoughtful introspection; and sick-souled faith that craves dogma, persecutes heretics, and rationalizes hatred. The global warming movement has fallen to that second kind of believers. Even if global warming is true, that truth is irrelevant to them.

This is an apocalyptic religious movement, and it shares with all others of its ilk the obsessions with dogma, heresy, heretics, and eager anticipation of watching humans destoyed for their sins. Substitute the wrath of nature for the wrath of God, and rising oceans for hellfire, and it would sound the same.

May Gaia have mercy on our souls.

Mar 7, 2009 - 2:36 am 5. eon:

Well, Beck should be in line for a Nobel Prize in physics. With his analysis of the way rising CO2 levels can be the cause of an event which preceded the rise chronoologically, he has finally disproven the principle of causality as defined by Einstein and Rosen.

We may all now acheive the dream of mystics everywhere, and travel to the ends of the Universe by simply willing it to happen, as observed by John Galt in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.

Beck needs to be careful about remembering that to go through a door without undue difficulty, you have to open it first. The alternative tends to be hard on your nose.

clear ether

eon

Mar 7, 2009 - 2:40 am 6. canuck:

Good article describing the Tin Hat crowd. As more and more of their AGW theories become debunked, they will become more strident and obnoxious. Over half the population now feel it is a scam or at least unproven and at least half of the stories coming out even in the MSM argue against these conjectures.

The Chicken Littles will soon demand that Zero and his socialist friends declare that this is national policy and to state otherwise is heresy. Unfortunately for them as it becomes evident that the “Emperor has no Clues” they will be treated just like all the other kook fringe Dems….a few little bones to keep them in line and enough legislation to keep them and the ACLU in court fighting anyone in the country with a functioning brain.

The country will end up with three groups: Chicken Littles and their academic whores, real scientists and those that demand a reasonable relationship of data to Koch’s principles, and half the country that doesn’t give a damn but will refuse to let the Greenies into their wallets any more.

Point, set and match for the thinkers…but it is going to be long and drawn out with lots of meaningless diversions.

Mar 7, 2009 - 3:54 am 7. Boris:

“when did we decide on “definitely?””

When we discovered that CO2 was a greenhouse gas.

“So it gets warmer and then the carbon comes out. Isn’t that the skeptic argument?”

Some skeptics argue this. But we know the modern CO2 increases come from fossil fuel burning, so skeptics have no point and are simply illustrating their ignorance when they say such things.

“Then how did the Milankovich cycle overwhelm CO2 levels to start each decline to the next ice age? How did the same CO2 concentration produce a rise in temperature on one side of the peak and a fall on the other?”

It takes a long time. Each summer, the NH gets less insolation due to the slight orbital (or precessional) changes, allowing more permanent ice and snowfall to remain each year. Slowly the permafrost creeps southward, reflecting more sunlight, which allows for more snowfall to remain. Eventually the oceans start to cool and take up more CO2 from the atmosphere, which weakens the greenhouse effect, allowing more snowfall to reamin and etc.

If you want to know more and read the literature, I’d recommend Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming, available for free at the American Institute of Physics website. But Beck’s explanation is dead on.

Mar 7, 2009 - 4:00 am 8. freetoken:

So, let me see if I get this correct: PJM is having an owner of a fitness training company criticizing someone else on physics? Now, being an owner of a fitness company is a worthwhile endeavor in itself but it is hardly a preparation for being able to distinguish what is or is not a good answer to difficult climatology questions.

When Mr. Steinberg can describe why the Earth’s and the Moon’s mean temperatures are so different, then he will be in a position to start to understand what role CO2 plays in the Earth’s temperature, and in untangling the relationships between atmospheric composition and time dependent causes (such as changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun.) The questions Mr. Steinberg ask about CO2 and its relationship to climate are answered in many ways on many websites and fill many scientific articles. Perhaps Mr. Steinberg ought to start there.

Beck doesn’t claim to be a climatologist, but he does dig for the answers that the climatologists are uncovering. Which is more than I can say for PJM, which have now for some months been putting up articles slamming both AGW science and the activists who want to pursue action or policy in relation to such.

When will PJM invite a climatologist (from the overwhelming majority of those who accept AGW) to post an article or two, to answer with the actual science?

Of what is PJM afraid?

Mar 7, 2009 - 4:11 am 9. Tom H.:

Keep trying….unfortunately the man made global warming theory (GWT) fans only want to look at the last couple of years in terms of ‘anomalies’ (increase or decrease from some ‘average’ that they picked out of the air) versus ‘trends’ (increase or decrease of temperature over time). If they looked at trends they would notice since 1900 we have decreased by 0.02 in temperature. Of course the stunning thing is that global melting seems to have left Antarctica alone which at the moment (just coming out of summer) is 0.25 million square kilometers ABOVE ‘normal’ (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg ) . In fact it has been increasing in sea ice extent for the last several years. Granted, from 2001 to 2007 we saw the largest loss in arctic sea ice extent since satellite imagery was available in 1979, but not the largest loss known. Greenland used to ice free and lush over 1000 yrs ago. Lately though the arctic has gained most of it’s ice extent back and is only 0.5 million sq. km shy of ‘normal’ (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg ). The real concern, and something the GWT fans seem to love to ignore is the sun. Solar output has tanked, alarmingly so. Typically there is a lag between solar output fluctuations and it’s effects on the earth. I believe we are going to see a continuation of longer and harsher winters. If the glaciation period cycles are any long term indicator (graph in the article) we are due for a massive drop in temperature.

Mar 7, 2009 - 4:31 am 10. Rubicon:

Heartwarming. Yep, perhaps a strange feeling when I read this, but heartwarming all the same.
For quite some time I was actually concerned that I was alone or among the few who questioned the AGW logic. Over time, I discovered I was not only not alone, there were many thousands of us. In addition, I also began to realize that AGW logic is an oxymoron. They present no logic, only as has been astutely pointed out here by others, dogma. Dangerous dogma. Threatening dogma.
Thanks for the clear, easy to read (for us common folk who are too stupid to understand this issue) article. I used what I was taught in 8th grade science class to determine CO2 follows temperature, so it cannot be the driver of temperature change.
Personally, I think any warming that may or may not take place, is caused by the sun & its affects on almost every other thing on our planet. W/o those affects, there would be NO changes, let alone warming.
My real concern is that AGW may be politically motivated by an elite who seek not only material wealth, but also political power. The remedies prescribed so far all seem to represent draconian change to our entire political system & ways of life. The loss of freedoms is an integral part of the remedies. Those concepts seriously concern me.
Its great to see so many are now coming out & speaking out against this “theory,” because it is just exactly that, theory. Worse is much of the data is based on computer models. One of the very first things I learned about computers is a saying… “garbage in, garbage out!”
Boy does that describe the entire AGW scam!

Mar 7, 2009 - 5:42 am 11. Steeple:

I’m not a climate expert, but I do know a few things:

1) The most state of the art climate forecasting models have a terrible record of accuracy beyond 10 days. Not months or years, but days.

2) We live on a tiny rock in an enormous galaxy where the surrounding temperature is extraordinarily cold. If one steps back and thinks about the situation and the phenomenon of reflective cooling, the last thing I would worry about is being too warm.

3) If one gathered all of the people on earth and put them into a single location where they were all gathered, but weren’t so close as to be able to even touch each other, that area would be 50 miles by 50 miles. Humans take up an inordinately small amount of the real estate on this planet. Wouldn’t that make one skeptical as to how much influence we can actually have on such a large atmosphere?

Mar 7, 2009 - 6:20 am 12. davod:

This is for the lawyers among he readers.

The WWF has TV ad with Noah Wylie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K8ScRPgs0E&eurl=http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-&p=WWF%20noah%20wylie&type=&feature=player_embedded )preaching the demise of the Polar Bear. The ad shows polar bears swimming off a small piece of ice.

This is deceptive.

If it can be shown that the advertisement is deceptive can the WWF be sued.

I know normally this would be a case of buyer beware. However, the money donated is tax deductable. So is the ad being used to defraud the government?

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/02/the_polar_bear_.html The Polar Bear Pic They Won’t Show You

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-500424/Polars-bears-brink-Dont-believe-it.html ‘Polars bears on the brink? Don’t you believe it’

Mar 7, 2009 - 6:23 am 13. Michael:

Why does Mars have global warming that parrallels Earths? Wow. The Earth must raelly be the center of the universe after all.

I love the attacks on this author. The idea that he isn’t a trained scientist he must be an idiot but our non scientist is a great sage. (because he agrees with us)

Now if they would just address all the little niggling questions he brought up. And please provide data and not just references to one of your prophets.

Also please explain all the cyclical climate changes in the historical record and why this one would be different even though it fits the historical pattern.

Mar 7, 2009 - 6:38 am 14. davod:

Sorry: I pressed submit by mistake.

This is for the lawyers among the readers.

The WWF has TV ad with Noah Wylie: preaching the demise of the Polar Bear. The ad shows polar bears swimming off a small piece of ice.

This is deceptive.

The Polar Bear Pic They Won’t Show You While the Riehlworld aritcle does not discuss the Wylie video it does discuss the origina misleading Polar Bear photo.

This UK Daily mail article ‘Polars bears on the brink? Don’t you believe it’ discusses the Polar Bear in general and the population in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada.

If it can be shown that the advertisement is deceptive can the WWF be sued.

I know normally this would be a case of buyer beware. However, the money donated is tax deductable. So is the ad being used to defraud the government, and can this be used as a legal means to revise or revoke the advertisement.

Mar 7, 2009 - 6:44 am 15. C3Heditor:

Alarmists, like Beck, seem to always resort to the most sophomoric, high school-like debate tactics that reveals a total lack of scientific and intellectual curiosity. Their arguments are entirely agenda driven, which are based on the views of the elites and prominent supporters of AGW (these people are not rational; they are not interested in actual science – just read their quotes to find what drives people like Beck).

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

For those readers who are tired of the irrational, non-scientific voice of global warming alarmists, there is a respite on a daily basis! Visit us at http://www.c3headlines.com.

C3H Editor

Mar 7, 2009 - 6:48 am 16. bob:

I never understood why the debate ever strays far from the IPCC reports. That is the official UN stance on the state of Global Warming science, and everything else is either un or barely vetted science or pure uneducated BS. And the IPCC stance is that humans are causing *some* amount of change to the environment. They don’t know how much, but have some ideas. They point out there are still important areas of the science that almost nothing is known about, and other areas where understanding is strong. Then it is pointed out what will probably happen in the future; double the sea rise of the 20th century (not that anyone noticed the sea rise of the 20th century).

Given the “scientific consensuses” in the past (Universe is absolutely shrinking and only a nutter would think otherwise), I’d stick with the “we need to learn more before acting” crowd.

Mar 7, 2009 - 7:50 am 17. Agamemnon:

“Boris”, ever the Useful Fool for globaloney alarmists, says: “But we know the modern CO2 increases come from fossil fuel burning.”

Wrong.

In fact, only a very small fraction of the increases in CO2 come from human emissions. Almost all of the increase in carbon dioxide — a minor trace gas comprising only .000387 of the atmosphere — is natural.

For those who don’t buy into the globaloney propaganda that CO2 is harmful, rather than beneficial, a great resource is: http://wattsupwiththat.com — the winner of this year’s Weblog Awards for “Best Science” site.

When Al Gore comes out and debates his preposterous AGW claim, you’ll know that he has confidence in his assumptions. The fact that Gore tucks his tail firmly between his legs makes it clear that he doesn’t really believe in his catastrophic global warming baloney any more than the general public does:

http://www.moonbattery.com/2009-priorities.gif

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:04 am 18. Proud Skeptic and Denier:

#7. Boris ” Some skeptics argue this. But we know the modern CO2 increases come from fossil fuel burning, so skeptics have no point and are simply illustrating their ignorance when they say such things.”

No reasonably intelligent individual could possibly believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Hey Boris, let’s get all 6.6 billion of us to jump up and down at the same time; do you think we could make the earth vibrate? How about we all take a deep breath and exhale in the same direction; do you think we might make wind? A breeze?

More to the point, one ‘average’ vulcano, just one, will spew more co2 into the atmosphere than all manmade (fossil-fuel burning) co2…IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY!

Currently, the largest (by far) greenhouse is water at 97% of all greenhouse gases. Number 2 is methane at 1.5% of all greenhouse gases. Co2 is not even third; it’s way down the list at 0.0375% of all greenhouse gases. And it’s been roughly that level for at least the last 100,000 years. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are not the cause of earth’s temperature variations and man’s contribution to co2 levels are negligent, at best.

Please, stop the alarmist nonsense before it costs us real money…like “cap-in-trade”.

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:08 am 19. Khiri:

Bob,

A lot of the scientists who “signed” the IPCC report have either changed their view after doing more research or, in some cases, have complained that they never signed it in the first place. Some of those who stand by the report are really environmental activists. Conflict of interest, anyone?

Besides, when has the UN ever done a good job with anything, especially lately? They are extremely agenda-drive, too many of which are detrimental to the US and the Western World.

If “the debate is over”, which, in science is a very dangerous claim, then why are there more scientists skeptical or outright debunking the AGW theory, more than support it? Too bad you rarely hear about them, unless it’s to ridicule them. Thanks, MSM.

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:12 am 20. Khiri:

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged ‘Consensus’ on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Is there really a
“consensus” on global warming among the scientists participating in the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To find
out, DemandDebate.com conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

“Our results indicate that the notion of a meaningful scientific
consensus on global warming is ludicrous,” said Steve Milloy,
DemandDebate.com’s executive director.

During the month of October, DemandDebate.com polled each of the 345
U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC’s
“Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis” with a six-question survey on
climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including
several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC
lead authors.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global
temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the
respondents said that such a temperature increase is either desirable,
desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess.

“Among survey respondents, then, there’s no consensus on desirability
of 1-degree Celsius of global warming — twice the level of warming that
occurred during the 20th century,” observed Milloy.

When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

“So if there’s no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?,” Milloy asked.

Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said
that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.

“So was there no climate change before mankind?” Milloy asked. “And if
there was natural climate change before man, why not now also?” he added.

Forty-four percent didn’t think that the current global climate was
unprecedentedly warm.

“The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about
the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists responded for the
most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of
them by the IPCC,” Milloy noted. “But when you ask questions that are off
the IPCC script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart,”
concluded Milloy.

The survey report is on the web at
http://www.DemandDebate.com/ipcc_survey.pdf.

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:14 am 21. Mike Blackadder:

Boris,

Actually the author’s stance is far more reasonable than Beck’s. The ice core record provides no evidence that greenhouse gases are the dominant effect in this temperature cycle since historically it lags temperature. If we were able to measure animal and plant life populations you would probably see a similar correlation to temperature change, and similarly this does not stand as evidence that plant and animal life are a dominant factor in warming the planet.

That doesn’t mean it is impossible that the greenhouse gas feedback is the most significant factor in the warming, even in those cycles, but such speculation should not be a substitute for empirical evidence. Given a lack of empirical evidence (only theoretical models) do you not agree that curiosity and skepticism are appropriate?

Do you not agree that a scientist would be skeptical of the assertion that greenhouse gases necessarily dominated the warming cycle with only back of the envelop arguments and no empirical evidence, whereas dismissing the possibility that our suspicions are false is evidence of science giving way to fear, environmental activism, politics or personal gain?

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:37 am 22. Steeple:

psd18, bravo

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:47 am 23. Chemman:

I am a scientist and the concepts of physical and chemical equilibrium are quite capable of accounting for the lag time between temperature and CO2 concentrations. It really isn’t all that complicated and it doesn’t require forcing mechanisms or elaborate secondary or tertiary explanations.

Mar 7, 2009 - 8:56 am 24. Boris:

“In fact, only a very small fraction of the increases in CO2 come from human emissions. Almost all of the increase in carbon dioxide — a minor trace gas comprising only .000387 of the atmosphere — is natural.”

Yes, the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is mysteriously transported to a different planet, and some unknown natural source of carbon is causing the rise at exactly the rate we’d expect from fossil fuel burning. You, sir, are a friggin’ genius.

Hey, why don’t you eat some paint chips until lead is .000387 of your bloodstream. Report back with the results.

“More to the point, one ‘average’ vulcano, just one, will spew more co2 into the atmosphere than all manmade (fossil-fuel burning) co2…IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY!”

A total and complete fabrication. You’d think if you were going to call me out by name, you wouldn’t embarrass yourself so.

“man’s contribution to co2 levels are negligent, at best.”

lol. Won’t argue with you there. Well said.

Mar 7, 2009 - 9:07 am 25. Mike Blackadder:

Bob,

I agree with your characterization of the science according to the IPCC, but the IPCC authors are similar to Beck in that they are not overly concerned about reasonable uncertainty. Somehow, they continue to advocate that it is “very likely” that unless we apply massive political change we will do significant irreversible damage to our environment.

They achieve that conclusion after presenting many elements of the story, each of which is essential to the catastrophic global warming narrative and highly uncertain on its own. Somehow the product of many inter-dependent and highly uncertain scenarios turns into a conclusion that is “very likely” when all put together. It doesn’t matter much since politicians can’t tell the difference and they are moved instead by false claims of ’scientific consensus’.

Mar 7, 2009 - 9:08 am 26. Boris:

“That doesn’t mean it is impossible that the greenhouse gas feedback is the most significant factor in the warming, even in those cycles, but such speculation should not be a substitute for empirical evidence. Given a lack of empirical evidence (only theoretical models) do you not agree that curiosity and skepticism are appropriate?”

Curiosity and skepticism are always appropriate, but too often skeptics declare AGW a hoax on incomplete information. For example, you claim there is no empirical evidence, yet there is. Empirical estimates of the strength of CO2’s contribution are comprable to model estimates:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/n6289/abs/347139a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html
Beck is trying to explain for a lay audience, but there are plenty of examinations of the paleo record that show CO2 as a vital player in recovery from glaciations. But there is a wide range, so it would be hard to say if CO2 is the “most important” forcing or not. This wide range is taken into account in IPCC projections.

Mar 7, 2009 - 9:17 am 27. MikeD:

Boris is a troll. A sanctimonious liberal and Obamabot, he appears here periodically to tell the assembled that he knows far better than they themselves what is right, good, and proper. Unfortunately for him, he is also transparent, not nearly as bright as he thinks, and he fools nobody. But, Lord knows, he is a believer; particularly of the big lie. And he is intent on repeating it/them until skepticism, any alternative and truth have been beaten into submission. Most people simply ignore him, however.

Mar 7, 2009 - 9:22 am 28. Marzipan:

Hi Chemman,

I am not a scientist, so could you elaborate a bit more nor a non-technical person?

Marz

Mar 7, 2009 - 9:24 am 29. HRPKathy:

You don’t need to be a scientist to recognize the difference between a theory and a fact.

AGW is a theory. Where it departs from true science is in its demand that it isn’t controversial. Most of us know that climatology has been politicized by the grant system, we hold a theory that climatologists are preponderantly propagating funding their programs. Where would that money go if AGW was disproven? The more urgent the problem, the more willing people are to part with cash to solve it. Who stands to gain? Follow the money. (Hint: It aint earth.)

One doesn’t have to be a scientist to doubt AGW for very sound reasons. Here’s just a few:
–The largest proponents of it have made no substantial changes to their own personal lifestyles, and in fact seem determined to exacerbate it by indulging in what they themselves describe as AGW causal behaviors, ie, jetsetting, SUV driving, and electric bill record setting. (See, Al Gore, Prince Charles, and the entire AGW think tank group that met at Bali where the airport was too small to hold all the jets).

–The only ’solutions’ involve taxation and increased government spending, and these have not been demonstrated as remotely effective. Therefore the increased taxes and government spending seem to be implemented to further another agenda having nothing to do with AGW.

–Every change in the weather from increased temperatures to the coldest winter on record, to tornadoes, hurricanes and even earthquakes are seized upon immediately to illustrate man’s impact on the climate. Even a child could figure out that man cannot both increase and decrease temperatures doing the same behaviors.

–The term “Climate Change” itself. Why did they stop using the term “Global Warming”? Nevermind. We know.

It’s no wonder the skeptics are growing. Pretty soon there will be more scientists jumping off that bandwagon than bureaucrats caught cheating on their taxes in the Obama administration.

Mar 7, 2009 - 10:08 am 30. HRPKathy:

As an addendum to my previous post. Has any major media outlet (or any media outlet for that matter) asked the question about Mr. Cap And Trade President’s White House being so warm in the dead of winter that his wife can go sleeveless? I call it Michelle Obama’s Marie Antoinette Energy Conservation Moment.

I can hear it now: “They can’t afford fuel for their cars? Let them use solar.”

Nope the press was so enamored by the muscles in her arms, and the fashion statement, they couldn’t be bothered. There’s just so much our press can’t be bothered with these days.

Mar 7, 2009 - 10:17 am 31. David W. Lincoln:

Well, what do you expect from the culturally challenged who copiously imbibe the koolaid of kyoto.

When people like Bjorn Lomberg change their schedule to debate those who defend Kyoto, and those who defend Kyoto drop out – it really smacks of desperation and hubris.

Mar 7, 2009 - 10:20 am 32. Mike Blackadder:

Hi Boris,

Thanks for the reply. This is very much consistent with what normally happens when I try to track down evidence behind global warming theory. I find myself chasing circular arguments and no answers are forthcoming.

The second nature article refers to the methodology of the first: “An alternative to model-based estimates is in principle available from the reconstruction of past climates3-6″, where reference 3 brings me to the first article you posted which says:

“The prediction of future greenhouse-gas-induced warming depends critically on the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to increasing atmospheric concentrations of these gases. Data from cores drilled in polar ice sheets show a remarkable correlation between past glacial–interglacial temperature changes and the inferred atmospheric concentration of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. These and other palaeoclimate data are used to assess the role of greenhouse gases in explaining past global climate change, and the validity of models predicting the effect of increasing concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere.”

And this is right where we started. You rely on the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature and presume the cause and effect relationship. At least that is what is apparent from the articles you posted. And in fact the small amount of empirical evidence that we have invalidates the findings of this article because since CO2 lags temperature you can not assume that the temperature differences are attributable to the different gas concentrations. You would perhaps be further ahead trying to infer how much a change in temperature is going to result in changes in CO2.

Mar 7, 2009 - 11:20 am 33. LennyB:

@24 Boris, no offense, but you don’t support your conjecture very well and you’ve got no right to expect someone else to back up facts if you don’t do it yourself. And by the way you’ve also got no business making fund of the muscle memory of someone whose fingers type “negligent” rather than “negligible”. If you think that makes your argument stronger, well, the thing speaks for itself as they say.

Quote: ““In fact, only a very small fraction of the increases in CO2 come from human emissions. Almost all of the increase in carbon dioxide — a minor trace gas comprising only .000387 of the atmosphere — is natural.””

Your response: “Yes, the CO2 from burning fossil fuels is mysteriously transported to a different planet, and some unknown natural source of carbon is causing the rise at exactly the rate we’d expect from fossil fuel burning. You, sir, are a friggin’ genius.”

Are you serious? The ‘rate we’d expect from fossil fuel burning’? Is that statement seriously what you think refutes the poster’s assertion that most CO2 is natural? To say nothing of the more pertinent fact regarding the relative volume of CO2 in the atmosphere? That comment about lead paint is the best you can do to address relative CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

Ironic that what you are actually doing is calling yourself a moron via your criticism than someone else is. At least make some kind of competent effort. And by the way, you AGW types ought to take a look at adjusting your arguments yet again, perhaps talk about how CO2 is somehow much worse that the other such gases and the human contribution to this, while minuscule, is somehow disproportionately significant and harmful based on this. That will enable you to maintain AGW arguments despite any data at all no matter what it says. And let’s face it, after a few more years you’re not going to have much further left to go, better start tweaking your arguments now while there is still time.

You folks are a complete joke, just keep tailoring your data and facts to support your conclusions rather than the other way around. It’s really that simple.

Why don’t you start on the human population thing next? Get a head start so there is something left to move on to. I recommend using agriculture rather than energy production as your basis, by the way. That is an excellent nexus to the economy, property ownership, and the socialism that you crave.

Mar 7, 2009 - 11:30 am 34. Boris:

“And this is right where we started. You rely on the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature and presume the cause and effect relationship.”

The relationship is not presumed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas–a fact that has been observed in the lab and in the atmosphere.

Mar 7, 2009 - 11:33 am 35. Self-hating Boomer:

Boris. We all know that CO2 absorbs an assortment of IR wavelengths. Duh. But that’s not the issue. Heat transport is a wee bit more involved than that. Stop harping on a tiny part of picture, and understand the other factors. Earth is not Venus. We have a lot of convective and phase-change phenomena that affect heat transport that don’t show up in Jimmy Hansen’s Venus-based model.

This isn’t a subject for sophomores. Leave it alone if you don’t understand the whole picture.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:11 pm 36. Boris:

LennyB,

I make fun of stupid arguments. There’s no point in arguing with people who think that the CO2 increase is natural. Even the skeptical “scientists” don’t make such ignorant arguments –and they make some pretty ignorant arguments.

There are many independent lines of evidence that confirm that the CO2 increase is natural, including isotope ratios, the decreasing oxygen content of the atmosphere and others.

My lead paint example is meant to counter the “CO2 is small in amount, therefore it cannot have an effect.” I’m not surprised that you fail to see the stupidity of such a claim. Chewing those paint chips might help you figure it out. Or not. Who cares what you guys think anymore?

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:13 pm 37. Delia:

The “Global warming” er.. “Global CLIMATE change” crowd has so much moula invested their own faux science that a [pardon the pun] ‘SNOWBALL’ effect has happened. Now, so many portions of the left wing ‘conspiratists’ are profiteering off of the supposed ‘GCC’ that to get them to deny its plausibility is like trying to pull a squealing piglet off of a teat.

Meanwhile, I dunno ’bout you but I’m freazin’ my little, lily white hiney off!

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:31 pm 38. Mike Blackadder:

Boris,

Good grief. I will try to explain again.

You realize that we started out arguing about the ice core data. The original point of contention is about how to interpret the correlation between CO2 and temperature apparent in this proxy data.

Now you try to argue that even though we know CO2 response follows temperature response in the ice core data that much of the temperature increase is due to CO2 because … wait for it… ice core data tells us there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature.

That’s what I mean by a circular argument. And yes, I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thanks.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:35 pm 39. Steeple:

It’s great that folks like Boris, Vivo, One of your own and Paul Peace have a place to come debate (although I discount name-calling as debate) as most of the other Lefty sites aren’t really into dissenting opinions.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:36 pm 40. Terry:

Boris,

“The relationship is not presumed. CO2 is a greenhouse gas–a fact that has been observed in the lab and in the atmosphere.”

Sure, fine. However, to achieve actual wisdom on this topic you’ll have to answer a few questions:

1) What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of human activity?
2) What percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are a result of human activity? (Remember that methane, for instance, is forty times stronger of a greenhouse gas than CO2. Also remember that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, by far, is water vapor.)
3) Clouds are a dominant force in determining the Earth’s albedo (reflectivity), and hence energy available for warming. To what level of fidelity are clouds modeled in the leading (NASA) climate models?
4) Insolation (sunlight) is by far the dominant force driving Earth’s surface temperature. The Sun is not constant thought, it varies with the sunspot cycle and other factors. To what extent is solar variability modeled in the climate models used to claim that CAGW is a problem?

CAGW is a scam, being used for financial gain and political control. That is the truth. The beautiful thing is that the Earth is currently in a sharp cooling trend, and that is likely to continue for decades, due to the sunspot cycles.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:42 pm 41. bill-tb:

Just posted this on the site in the excellent article ….

This right here would end the politics of the AGW argument. For the last 10 years the earth’s mean temperature has been flat and over the last few years dropping. Meanwhile CO2 is rising, gone up a few parts per million(ppm) in the last century, proving CO2 is not the forcing factor of Earth’s climate. UK MET office data will do fine, although NOAA has now fixed the errors in their data and it agrees with the UK MET office.

Neither data set takes into account the warming distortion causing a skew in the surface temperatures because of the urban heat island effect of station siting, bad measuring station placements not meeting USHCN specifications, or other factors that are in control of the people running the monitoring stations.

End of story for this hoax. But some more facts …

The sun’s modern maxima came to an abrupt end in fall 2005. Yes that’s right, the sun’s modern maxima is the most recent period where the sun was radiating more than usual energy to the Earth, About 1930-2004. Any sunspots chart will show that data if you care to check it out. Try solarcycle24.com for all the latest charts and data. The data comes direct from the most reliable sources.

You are right, do some reading and research, use real corrected surface temperature data sets. Use real satellite data. Prof Bob Carter has a video lecture series on youtube that can be helpful in getting an overall picture of the real aspects of Earth’s always changing climate.

Also while you are at it, check for that warming blanket surrounding the Earth, yes we now have satellites that actually directly measure it, look right where the GCMs predict it should be. One major problem, it’s not there is it?

Did you know that actually greenhouses, those things they grow plants in, don’t warm up and the operators increase the CO2 to about 1200 ppm so the plants grow bigger, faster and get greener?

Did you know that if we lowered the CO2 in the atmosphere to less than about 200 ppm, about half what it is today, most plants plants on Earth would die.

Did you know that if we removed CO2 from the atmosphere, all life on Earth would disappear as CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and cellular respiration — CO2 is literally the stuff of life for carbon life forms on Earth, and yes that includes man. CO2 is not as some alarmists say, a pollutant.

Do some reading, forget politics. Yes Greenland was name Greenland back about 1000 AD because, well you know, the Vikings found it was green and they could farm and raise livestock. It’s now too cold for those activities in the scale they were when the Vikings were there.

At the same period in time, grapes grew in London, might make sense all those streets named after vines, grapes and wines when you think about it — Yes wine was produced in England at the same time the Vikings were farming Greenland. Odd.

One more point, since the end of the last glaciation period, about 12,000 years ago, sea level has risen by 100 meters or so. Yep, that’s 100 meters, to where it is today.

Next up, the real ice age. Facts and real data, better than all the political arguments you can make.

If you want to tax, ration and regulate energy, then at least have the honesty to say so.

Mar 7, 2009 - 12:51 pm 42. Boris:

“That’s what I mean by a circular argument. And yes, I know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Thanks.”

No one is making that argument. We know that CO2 causes some of the warming because–wait for it–CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Paleo studies try to narrow down the exact effect of CO2 by looking at the known forcings and their uncertainties–hence the large range of sensitivity.

Mar 7, 2009 - 2:17 pm 43. Air2air:

Boris, I see the Virgin Mary in my sandwich. If you do not, please let me explain, because I wouldn’t want to have to call you:

1. A heretic
2. An atheist
3. A skeptic

I see her right in front of me. Therefore the issue is resolved, and we just have to work with you a bit. Please try some of the following:

1. Change the lighting
2. Turn the sandwich around
3. Push some crumbs around with your thumb
4. See some pictures from other Virgin sightings around the world

I am submitting my grant application for further study of the phenomenon. The issue is so serious that I think it may take millions to get to the bottom of it.

Nobody would disagree that the Virgin Mary is a worthy cause.

Mar 7, 2009 - 3:03 pm 44. friedfish2718:

The events the AGW alarmists focus on relate to water: droughts, floods, changes of icemass on land and sea. Some alarmists point to behavioral
changes of migratory animals; co2 is not the proximate cause; water is, for where water goes, life goes.

To increase ice mass on landmass you need 4 things:
1- temperature; 2- water (vapor,water,ice);
3- air currents to bring the water to a given area; 4- other elements (dust, cosmic rays, soot, etc..) to trigger water precipitation
(rain, snow, sleet, etc..)

So far the AGW alarmists cannot show increase in carbon dioxide as causative for issues 2-4. On issue 1, water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than co2.

The above arguments are not new. The temperature sensor satellites do not measure temperature per se; they pick up emission of oxygen molecules and infer a temperature. Said satellites do not measure humidity. So NASA launched the AIRS satellite to measure humidity.

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/science/major_findings/climate/

“AIRS moisture fields differ from 6 majorclimate models such that the models are too dry below 800 mb in the tropics compared with AIRS, and too moist between 300 mb and 600 mb especially in the extra-tropics.”

So the AGW computer models are inaccurate on the water cycle and thus cannot show co2 as causative of climate change. water dictates climate, not co2.

Mar 7, 2009 - 3:16 pm 45. rotto:

Environmentalism is more than an “apocalyptic religious movement,” it is the weapon of present day tyrants masquerading as an “apocalyptic religious movement.”

It is also the name which the faithless apply to the futility of their minds that is a result of rejecting the true God (not gaia) and pretending to be informed on some important subject – even if it is a complete fabrication, made up for the sole purpose of enslaving them.

Here’s a simple rule of thumb for the simple to contemplate. Any system – any “ology” – that leads to the destruction of freedom is doomed to fail – but only after it destroys itself, its adherents, and those it enslaved.

Another tidbit – CO2 makes up less that 1% of total gases in the atmosphere – even with the smog belching Suburban that I drive.

Mar 7, 2009 - 4:39 pm 46. davod:

Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Summary:

Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC’s own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

“[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,” he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

“We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. ”

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”

Mar 7, 2009 - 4:58 pm 47. Not Beck:

I’m familiar w/ Beck’s site, having been directed there myself by a friend who was impressed by his work.

It’s apparent that Beck doesn’t have the requisite background to really understand the arguments that he’s presenting. He simply seems to be arranging snippets of claims and counter-arguments that he’s found elsewhere. This technique is evident in the selection that the author has redacted.

This approach would be less problematic if he were to present his responses in the form of an annotations of cites. But instead he attempts to present himself as an authority on the range of sciences which he’s drawing upon. And in doing so, actually bastardizes their claims and findings.

Mar 7, 2009 - 7:44 pm 48. myth buster:

Greenhouse gas effects are logarithmic, which means that if doubling the CO2 concentration increased the temperature by 1 degree, it will take a redoubling to raise it another degree, and another doubling for each subsequent degree. Thus, to increase the temperature to the low end of the feared levels would require CO2 levels rising to 2400 ppm by the end of the century, even if all the warming were caused by CO2, which simply is not going to happen.

Mar 7, 2009 - 10:22 pm 49. Air2air:

Boris I think all of us here would agree that the quality of your discourse is much higher that what we are used to from your side. In my experience you are one of very few AGW supporters who actually jumps in to the debate with discussion points.

Regardless of your position, I respect that your opinion seems formed from a factual perspective. You can probably sympathize that other adherents on the AGW side take a personal and emotional perspective that is impossible for many of us to debate.

Mar 7, 2009 - 10:26 pm 50. Blackwater:

There’s just so many problems with supporting doing something about global warming.

1) Even if all the developed nations like America cut back our emissions to 0% it won’t matter. Quickly developing nations will just completely offset our cuts in emissions with their soaring increase in emissions. Take China and India as perfect examples. Those 2 countries alone make up a half of the entire human population. And both countries are going through growth periods and are still in their industrial age. And their emissions are only going to exponentially increase for decades to come. So what’s the point of cutting back on our emissions if quickly developing countries won’t?

That makes CO2 regulations in America and in Western countries simply feel good measures to make us feel green and better about ourselves without having ANY impact on the CO2 rise. That alone is enough to reject calls of CO2 cuts. These developing countries simply will not agree to CO2 regulations, ever. The only possible way to get them agree to CO2 cuts is offset the price tag it cost them by giving their governments literally trillions of dollars.

And I don’t about the rest of you all but I don’t feel like feeding a dictatorial communist Chinese regime that abuses human rights more cash. And last time I checked China surpassed America recently into CO2 emissions and their emissions are only going to greatly increase. So instead of pointing the finger at America shouldn’t everone be focusing all of their energy on China and other developing countries?

2) Even if we cut back all human emissions of CO2 the negative environmental effects everyone is already complaining about happening will ALREADY happen since the CO2 will remian in the global system for several decades. So no matter what we do all the doom and gloom and scenarios people are crying about are inevitable. That’s assuming their preidctions are accurate which I highly doubt.

And we don’t even seem to know how much exactly we need to cut back human emissions by to actually STOP the warming. Is it 50%? 80%? 100%? Who knows? And that always bothered me. If thise is such a serious problem then don’t you think we should atleast know exactly how much we have to cut back CO2 emissions by to actually STOP the warming? If we’re going to waste trillions upon trillions of dollars “fight global warming” then don’t you think we should atleast know how much we have to cut back our emissions by?

And what if we find out that even after we back human CO2 emissions by 100% the global warming trend continues and that it’s simply a natural cycle in climate flucuation? Then what? Are we going to actually try to offset what NATURE wants to do? I don’t about everyone else but that sounds extremely costly and even dangerous to try and attempt. In my opinion humanity simply has to adapt to global climate change.

If we try and keep teh environment exatly the same forever our ecosytem will become almost artificial. Which could have all kinds of dangerous uninteded conswquences like the giant forst fires created in our national parks by not alloing teh underbrush to be burned away naturally. People are simply too afraid of change. They want everything to remain exactly the same. People have to learn to adapt to a changing weather pattern and ecostem. It’s as simple as that.

3) I highly doubt that such a small contribution to our atmospheres natural green house effect could have such a large impact on the climate. CO2 itself is an extremly small percentage of Earths atmosphere. And our CO2 emissions make up and extremely small percentage of that CO2. We’re talk a fraction of a percent here folks.

4) Like this article covered, when you look back at the evidence of the history of our climate CO2 was NEVER the driving force of temperature change, EVER. So why should we believe it is now.

5) Calls for CO2 regulations are most likely just strings to tie down Gulliver, aka America, aka The Great Satan. If I hated Americans I’d support heavy regulations in their energy to significantly damage their economy. That’s what our politicians have to keep in mind when dealing with this issue internationally. Not everyone likes America. This could just be a trojan horse to throw some wrenches in our economic engine. Also keep in mind that a lo of people in the world both domestic and abroad are anti-growth and anti-capitalism. I wouldn’t be surprised if 90% of environmentalists are socialists/communists.

Mar 8, 2009 - 7:01 am 51. Blackwater:

Most of the effects of global warming probably won’t be that bad. They just won’t wont. Oh no! Mount So and So will lose 30% of its ice cap! So what? People greatly exaggerate the effects of global warming. Humanity will adapt just fine and the world will continue to be just as beautiful.

7) There’s no rush. We should simply wait for technology trends to improve on their own through market forces. When alternative energy is economically practical and sound and convienent to use then so be it. No need to use a bunch of inefficient solar panels now.

We have TONS of coal and other fossil fuels. We should exploit them to the fullest for own economic benefit. We could be making trillions more dollars if we drilled our national reserves of fossil fuels. And as long as we can access them and use them in a practically environmentally sound way then we should. As long as they aren’t turning our rivers into toxic cesspools then who cares? The economy MUST always be our #1 priority. we can never be satisified with ourselves and rest on the accomplishments of past generations. We always have to keep pushing to grow and expand our econmy as much as possible.

If we don’t we’ll be left behind by other nations. The economy is SO important. It allows us to fund everything from the sciences to the arts and greatly raisies all of our standards of living. It allows to have a gigantic military which keeps us, our allies, and our values safe. There’s always some asshole in the world who isn’t ahppy with the status quo and will try and change the world order by force. And we always have to be vigilant to prevent that from happening or say so long to democracy and Western civilization.

Mar 8, 2009 - 7:10 am 52. Mike Blackadder:

“No one is making that argument.”

Sorry Boris, but review your post #26. You most certainly did present the strong correlation between CO2 and temperature (from ice core data) as an example of empirical proof for how CO2 causes warming.

If anyone cares, the actual global warming argument is slightly more sophisticated than what we hear from Boris. We start with the assumption that surface temperatures are increased 33 degrees from greenhouse effect and we know what proportion is attributable to CO2 due to air concentrations and lab experiments of CO2 trapping heat. Based on this they calculate how much they expect surface temperatures to increase due to a doubling of CO2. The calculated increase in surface temperature from CO2 doubling is actually not that high (~ 0.5 to 1 degree C). Then they take into account other feedbacks: higher surface temperature means it will hold more water vapour thus increasing surface temp. another 1-2 C. Then we have cloud feedbacks that also contribute, but the mechanism is not easy to predict (even to model) – but in the balance they figure it is another positive feedback.

From the beginning I said that this claim that greenhouse gases are the major contributor to historical warming is not necessarily impossible, it is just that there is very little empirical evidence for this. The author’s original point that there is an external forcing (presumably solar) that reverses the warming while CO2 (and presumably water vapour & cloud feedbacks) are at their peak, would logically suggest that this other forcing was historically more significant than the greenhouse gases/cloud effects which I’m sure modelers realize (it’s just Beck obviously does not).

If laboratory experiments that show CO2 is a greenhouse gas is enough evidence for some to accept the highly complex greenhouse effect/multiple feedbacks scenario described above, then I think the author’s point about the incurious carbon alarmists is vindicated.

Mar 8, 2009 - 7:27 am 53. JackT:

They used to kill people for saying the world was round, or that the earth was not the center of the universe. Now we have idiots like you claiming there is no global warming, when the scientific community has already spoken on the subject. Your mind set is the result of greed and hatred, not truth and justice. This is not about politics or religion, it’s about what’s best for the planet. You’d have to be a complete idiot not to be aware that burning fossil fuels is damaging the earth, not to mention it’s most precious inhabitants.

Mar 8, 2009 - 7:33 am 54. Boris:

Blackadder,

Your numbers are slightly off. CO2’s first order response is about 1.1`C. I’m not sure what you find wrong about what I’ve said. The empirical evidence about CO2’s effect is based on intricate examinations of the paleo record–not on the mere correlation.

Whether CO2 was the “major forcing” is irrelevant. Figuring out the effect of CO2 is what counts, and empirical and model estimates give a range of 2-4 degrees C for a doubling.

Mar 8, 2009 - 9:06 am 55. Mike Blackadder:

Boris,

That’s a better explanation though not forthcoming from the links you sent.

What kind of intricate examination are you referring to? I realize they can see close enough to notice that the CO2 levels are more or less following the temperature but ~ 200-400 years later. How can that scenario prove the extent to which CO2 is increasing the temperature? That’s a very difficult argument when you know that increased temperatures will result in higher CO2 and when there are multiple other feedbacks (like vapour, ice melt, clouds) that are expected to be higher magnitude feedbacks than CO2 and when the uncertainty in the clouds effect is larger than the whole CO2 effect. Like I said earlier, using the same methodology I could similarly prove that greater abundance of plant life leads to global warming.

If it was clear from the paleo record that CO2 changes were preceding temperature changes the argument would be much stronger. But I’m afraid you unfortunately ran into a bit of a snag there.

Mar 8, 2009 - 12:44 pm 56. davod:

“Now we have idiots like you claiming there is no global warming, when the scientific community has already spoken on the subject.”

Man made is the issue for most. Temperatures have gone down over the last ten years.

Boris:

“The empirical evidence about CO2’s effect is based on intricate examinations of the paleo record–not on the mere correlation.”

Rubbish.

Mar 8, 2009 - 2:14 pm 57. Boris:

Blackadder,

What we know about the other forcings can constrain the estimates of CO2’s effect. If CO2’s effect is too small, then we can;t explain how we got out of the glaciation. Too large and we’d expect a runaway effect.

Mar 8, 2009 - 3:21 pm 58. Jim Baker:

#8 freetoken,
I am a geophysicist and I am sure that I know more than you do on this subject. But the author here is far more qualified than I am to refute this ridiculus theory. You don’t have to have credentials as a scientist in order to think rationally and speak with authority. So, you attack David Steinberg for not being a card carrying physicist, and you attack PJM for allowing him to post an article because you say he is not competent to speak on the subject, but you don’t bother to try to refute anything he says.
By the way I am still waiting for the people, who have foisted this theory on the rest of us, to prove this theory. Environmental science is just politics, else why do they call it environtmental science. Chemists, geologists and biologists don’t have to mention that they are scientists as well, do they?

Mar 8, 2009 - 4:01 pm 59. Mike Blackadder:

“If CO2’s effect is too small, then we can;t explain how we got out of the glaciation. Too large and we’d expect a runaway effect.”

Boris, like I said, when the uncertainty in the cloud effect is much larger than the expected CO2 effect one explanation could be that there was a greater contribution from clouds, and no CO2 effect at all. You can not discount that possibility from the ice core data alone (ie. CO2 x2 = 1 +/- 2 degrees).

It’s not from lack of trying, it’s just that this type of analysis has too much uncertainty to get any determination of the effect of CO2. In the meantime it is reasonable to have doubts, and to question why these ‘climate experts’ do not admit the same.

Mar 8, 2009 - 6:29 pm 60. SiliconDoc:

If you jammed an ice cold ice pick up their rear end, they would experience global co2 warming, and it would only further their purely scientific consensus.
Yes, that makes as much sense as they do.
It’s just another notch in the long line of psychobabbling, psychotic libtards that are hellbent on destruction, and although they scream aloud their hatred for the KKK USA, and bow in worship at their Oliar the illegal alien foreigner fraudster’s flappy ears and feet, they can’t imagine that might just pull the destruction off (with a little help from their terrorist friends), so they blunder forward, lying, and stupefying eachother in an endless menagerie of arrogant, elitist wannabe stupidity.
I do now understand why there was only one Galileo, or Einstein. Because there were a bunch of other brainless morons who couldn’t tell their right shoelace from their left, but loved leaving the “Holiday Inn” of the day, then telling all they were qualified professionals. Instead, they were idiot liars, often not even knowing it, one must assume, unless other aspects of their character reveal they were merely bipedal slimebags, which admittedly is equally possible.
It is just amazing. I watched, for me, the precursor of this all through school, the endless number of complete idiots outnumbering the few of us in all the advanced classes. Somehow though, they never spoke up at all, certainly not so loud and so often, and never maintained they were correct about something the sane easily saw through in mere seconds of observation.
Nowadays, the same jackassed idiots wail and carp that so and so should take college course in logic, so they can tell what is and isn’t the truth – that of course, after the same jackassed idiot claims in liberal psycho-blabber that all truths are in perpsective and under parse of each individual observer, so noone can really know any fact or truth.
That of course must be the basis for them excusing their ten thousand repetitive lies, since if you take just the right amount of mind melting acid, what they claim might finally emerge as truth…
Yeah, they’re just useless trash, and criminally insane, and dangerous, and destructive, and yes, they are mind controlled, but not by MKUltra as they claim, unfortunately, but by eachother, the stupid idiots and criminal sell outs of the century in collusion.

Mar 8, 2009 - 10:52 pm 61. gjbuilder:

Recent discoveries have shown the lack of a complete accounting of all climate forcing agents.
NASA’s THEMIS program has recorded the solar wind reacting with the earth’s magnetic field, it disintegrating and a magnetic reconnection occurring, which shoots out a cloud of plasma in opposite directions. The cloud that hits the earth is large and delivers 10 to the 15th power joules of energy into the atmosphere. For your reading;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html

Also, cosmic rays do affect cloud growth, such that when the sun is less active more clouds form, changing atmosphereic albedo.Consider;
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Dr. Roy Spencer has published a peer-reviewed study which he claims has been well recieved by the climate community of open minded scientists;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

The above referenced info is no more than two years old and was discovered by myself, an unemployed builder, researching a paper for college English. It does not require a phd to understand. Those that would confuse the debate with excess scientific verbiage are sticking to the old dictum, ” If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

Mar 9, 2009 - 8:41 am 62. Squirmn:

I think we might be forgetting the simple fact that Global Warming Alarmists have yet to prove that Global Warming exists. It is not enough to have estimates or models, AGW needs to be proven to actually have happened. Then we can argue as to what caused it and how to fix it. I have never, not one time, by any consensus, seen proof that it actually exists. Prove me wrong please. Do not point me to conjecture or singleton theorists. Point me to a vast majority that believes and has irrefutable evidence in hand. Then I will be happy to evaluate the facts and possibly reverse my position. I wait on bated breath for the proof.

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:19 pm 63. David S:

Nobody will deny that humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

Nobody (with any sense) will deny that the earth is currently warming, as the data is quite clear.

Nobody has offered an alternative theory to AGW that would explain the current trends in temperature.

It is fine to be skeptical, nobody has a problem with questioning the data, but denying the current state of affairs is promoting ignorance.

Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment, and using government policy to restrain and redirect industry to less harmful sources of energy is a proper application of law. Environmental pollution is an externalized, socialized cost of industry that should be accounted for, and a carbon tax is a good start.

If you are going to deny that there is a negative impact from CO2 emissions, or that the earth is not warming – cite some data. Asking questions that have already been addressed only exposes your ignorance.

Peace.

DS

Mar 10, 2009 - 12:50 pm 64. Squirmn:

@ David S.

“Nobody will deny that humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.”

Large is a relative term. I may be “large’ compared to you, your house may be “larger” than mine. Is the CO2 and other pollutants released by fossil fuels a “large” proportion compared to the atmosphere? The answer is no, and you should know that. I am not defending pollution by any means, but lets be realistic.

“Nobody (with any sense) will deny that the earth is currently warming, as the data is quite clear.”

I do not have to deny that the earth is currently warming, I have seen no irrefutable proof that it is warming. Linky this oh so clear data please.

“Nobody has offered an alternative theory to AGW that would explain the current trends in temperature.”

There does not need to be an alternative theory, as AGW is not a theory by any stretch. Again, I do not need to disprove something that has not been proven to any degree, let alone becoming a hypothesis or theory.

“It is fine to be skeptical, nobody has a problem with questioning the data, but denying the current state of affairs is promoting ignorance.

Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment, and using government policy to restrain and redirect industry to less harmful sources of energy is a proper application of law. Environmental pollution is an externalized, socialized cost of industry that should be accounted for, and a carbon tax is a good start.”

There is nothing to deny yet, other than pollution and I have already addressed that.

“If you are going to deny that there is a negative impact from CO2 emissions, or that the earth is not warming – cite some data. Asking questions that have already been addressed only exposes your ignorance.”

Again David, the citing of data is your responsibility until there is no question that the data is beyond doubt. This has not been done yet, and there is no majority consensus, so the verdict is still out. Just because it has been addressed does not make it convincing. If this line of logic makes me ignorant, then I will join the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Darwin as those that are skeptic until compelled by proven data to believe otherwise. I do not think that anyone on this board is ignorant, and using that liberal libel is beneath you, comparative to your other posts.

Still waiting-

Pete

Mar 10, 2009 - 3:14 pm 65. Marc Malone:

Some of the posts and links here were far better than the article, which I found to be kind of muddled.

The best by far was #61 gjbuilder. His last link leads to an alternate theory that seems strongly supported by actual solid data and correlation. It’s the first thing I’ve seen that offers more answers than questions. It is only a bit technical and reasonably comprehensible. My response to it was, “Dang, that makes a lot more sense!”

Mar 10, 2009 - 4:29 pm 66. Greg Gatch:

You should look into other blogging platforms, wordpress is getting slower and slower these days, I really like the site tho so its worth the wait!!

May 26, 2009 - 5:04 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: