55 Comments

1. Panday:

What we’re all supposed to realize now is that the earth is getting cooler because it’s getting warmer. That’s why it’s now… called… uhh… “climate change.”

Jul 27, 2008 - 7:00 pm 2. wretchard:

I was at a meeting in a cafe when cars drove by coated with what looked suspiciously like hail. During the recently concluded World Youth Day, the radio stations reported that Africans and those who had come from similarly balmy climes sought refuge in hospital emergency rooms as temperatures hit 41F one evening. Forty one might not seem like much to someone in Montana, Maine or Canada but to guys whose concept of warm clothing is a tracksuit jacket it can get your attention.

Jul 27, 2008 - 7:23 pm 3. Doug:

At a gathering where Mullah Nasruddin was present, people were discussing the merits of youth and old age. They had all agreed that, a man’s strength decreases as years go by.
Mullah Nasruddin dissented.

- I don’t agree with you gentlemen, he said.
In my old age I have the same strength as I had in the prime of my youth.

- How do you mean, Mullah Nasruddin? asked somebody. Explain yourself.

- In my courtyard, explained Mullah Nasruddin, there is a massive stone. In my youth I used to try and lift it. I never succeeded. Neither can I lift it now.

Only God knows the whole truth.

– Barnett R. Rubin
—
ot,

U.S.-Pakistan relations are ready to crumble

100 Pushtun Guerrillas Killed at Spera from Air;

100 Pushtun Guerrillas Killed at Spera from Air; ISI under Civilian Control?
One hundred Pushtun guerrillas launched a major offensive in an attempt to take Spera District center.
They drew down on themselves the full fury of US and NATO air forces that gave support to Afghan National Police, which killed up to 70 of them.

Jang reports in Urdu that Khost governor Arsala Jamal said that the guerrillas had begun by attacking police checkpoints. In the aftermath, local police asked for help from the Afghan army.
—
Meanwhile, The Pakistani government took back on Sunday an announcement made Saturday that Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistani military intelligence, had been put under the control of the civilian ministry of the interior.

A clarification today said that the feared ISI, which is accused of using the neo-Taliban against Afghanistan, remains under the authority of the prime minister. That restatement might imply in turn that it remains under the control of the military, who supposedly report to the PM but actually dictate military policy to him.
—
Obama’s Sober Mood

Wolffe:
Based on what you’ve seen and heard on this trip, is there anything that has led you to review any policy, tweak things, rethink anything?

Obama:
Our success in Afghanistan is going to be deeply dependent not just on getting more troops there, which we need, but also some sustained high-level engagement with Pakistan—something that I discussed before but I think is significantly more urgent than even I had imagined.

Basically there doesn’t appear to be any pressure at all being placed on Al Qaeda, on these training camps, these safe havens, in the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas].

Jul 27, 2008 - 7:33 pm 4. fred:

Outlier events should never make the case for any hypothesis about general trends. Here in the U.S. we are experiencing a very strange summer. Dew points and relative humidity here in the Northeast have been like Florida’s and the Deep South’s for most of the summer. In fact, I saw a dew point and relative humidity weather map recently that had these high dew points all the way up into the northern parts of Western Canada. Our temperatures are not at all extreme, but it is the tropical feel to the air that is most unusual for many weeks on end. Also, the barometric pressure has tended to be under 30 – again, not typical for our corner of the country. And this has been going on for MONTHS, if not the entire year. We rarely get nice high pressure systems now.

I don’t chalk it up to Al Methane Bore’s hypothesis of man made global warming.

Jul 27, 2008 - 7:53 pm 5. Doug:

One unassailable fact seems to be that if “Global Warming” IS caused by man made CO2,
there is no known way mankind could do anything of significance about it.

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:26 pm 6. Derek:

My question is whether the various models were tested by putting data in up to 10 years ago, and seeing if they predicted accurately what we know has happened.

If a hypothesis can’t predict accurately, it is false.

A Calgary businessman lost billions for himself and his investment firm when he bet on global warming causing hurricanes.

Snake oil. All of it.

Derek

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:35 pm 7. fred:

Doug,

I believe that solar cycles and also deep ocean thermal energy release play a much, much larger role than CO2 in the scheme of things. I am not at all sold on Al Bore’s hypothesis. I saw his movie and I pretty much caught the scientific error: correlation is NOT causation, but he makes that error. I got better grades in college than he did. Plus, he got F’s at Harvard University, the school that has a long-standing reputation for grade inflation. To get F’s and D’s at Harvard you have to work at it.

I am just amazed at the number of educated people who watched his movie and were convinced by it – and never caught that serious methodological error.

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:38 pm 8. Teresita:

Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over.

(Warning to Doug with his crappy Windows Vista, this links to a PDF.)

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:41 pm 9. wretchard:

We know that the climate is changing. It has been changing every since the earth began. The question is whether we can predict the change from our models. Whether our models add any value to the prediction. Let’s suppose we take the default hypothesis that next year’s weather will be the same as this year’s. The AGW model should be able to generate a prediction based on its own calculated simulation. Then let’s compare the AGW models to this simple-minded “no change” prediction. When the next year comes we can compare the difference between the “no change” forecast and the AGW forecast against the actually observed values. Which prediction is better? If the AGW model can do no better then it doesn’t have any obvious value. If it is consistently better than the simple model or any other model then it has some predictive value. (Hat tip: ED for this approach to thinking about it).

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:42 pm 10. Teresita:

This change-over to global cooling, I might add, occurred right on time, as predicted, unlike the orthodox global warming prediction, which insists on a 1 degree F increase per decade for the next century. Valid science makes correct predictions. Bunk science falls on its face. But Dr. Easterbrook will be tarred and feathered as a “Global Warming Denier”.

Jul 27, 2008 - 8:52 pm 11. Doug:

“We know that the climate is changing. It has been changing every since the earth began.”
—
But the trick would be to find some way to get Democrats (certainly not the entire left) to accept THAT in some logical and scientifically valid way.
(as opposed to “Katrina proves it” etc etc)

One would think that written history of farming on Greenland might do the trick, but one would be wrong!

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:04 pm 12. Peterike:

It never quite seemed right to me that CO2 causes all the trouble when even after all the years of industrial production it is only .039 percent of the atmosphere. That’s 385 parts per million. Yet this tiny trace is supposed to melt the icecaps and kill us all or whatever.

Yet the same people who claim this will totally deny that the sun might be having an effect on the climate. The sun, into which you can fit 1.3 million Earths. The sun… you know, that big blazing ball of fire in the sky. Hmmm, so if that gets hotter or cooler, it has no effect. But a few specs of CO2 in the air are going to kill all the polar bears. Yah.

It doesn’t pass the smell test.

If you want to get a visual sense of the difference in size between the earth and the sun, here is a good representation:

http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/comparisons.html

Scroll down to the second picture.

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:06 pm 13. fred:

‘The question is whether we can predict the change from our models. Whether our models add any value to the prediction.”

If we get beyond five days, weather models experience considerable degradation in their accuracy of prediction. I am not aware of any reliable and decently accurate climate models, but if there are I would be the first to listen. Yet, I just cannot fathom how even a computer and algorithms could possibly take into account all the variables and especially how everything in the timing of events can change when an unexpected variable intrudes. Call me a skeptic. Anyway, there are too many variables, and no one factors in the sun’s behavior and when it will come into play. Ditto for the seismic, deep ocean events which release gargantuan amounts of thermal energy and this eventually effects surface temperatures of the ocean even if only one degree. Can mean the difference in ocean currents and wind patterns.

I’m not against the effort to try. I just am in awe of the task. If we in the finance and investing world find that our models can fail and do in fact fail – with actually fewer (even if human)variables to account for in the algorithms – how much more daunting is the task when modeling nature?

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:13 pm 14. Tcobb:

In an English course I had in college my professor asked one of my fellow students a question. The answer clearly indicated that the student had not read the material that was required. At that point my professor said, “Ah– Mr. X, you are a model student. And class, you do know what a model is, don’t you? Just open a dictionary and it will tell you that a model is a small imitation of a real thing.”

And that is the problem with models. Too often the people who become enamored with them forget they are merely a construct rather than reality itself, often to the point that when reality demonstrates that the model is inadequate the response of the faithful to the Model is to deny the validity of the data which shows that the model is flawed.

May God save us all from those whose faith in themselves is unassailable.

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:18 pm 15. Tcobb:

Sorry–in the last paragraph of my comment the word “themselves” should have been “their Models.” But then again–perhaps I was right the first time.

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:37 pm 16. Utopia Parkway:

If Greg Norman can lead the British Open in 2008 it can snow in Australia in 2008. Of course it would be impossible for him to actually win a major. That would be against the laws of nature, especially at his age.

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:47 pm 17. Doug:

When Norman Saunders was at UCLA, there was a small weather station setup in a case in the Hallway.

His meterology professor walked up, and Norm asked him what he thought the weather would be.

The professor answered:
“I don’t know, have you looked out the window?“

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:48 pm 18. Lifeofthemind:

We can always count on the government to judge scientific questions from a position informed by shameless celebrity hounding, gross ignorance and bluff. It has become a byword in the Winter that the best predictor of a blizzard is a report the Al Gore is coming to give a talk on Global Warming.

Jul 27, 2008 - 9:59 pm 19. Lifeofthemind:

From Vaclav Havel’s Inaugural New Year’s Address, 1990.

Allow me a small personal observation. When I flew recently to Bratislava, I found some time during discussions to look out of the plane window. I saw the industrial complex of Slovnaft chemical factory and the giant Petr’alka housing estate right behind it. The view was enough for me to understand that for decades our statesmen and political leaders did not look or did not want to look out of the windows of their planes. No study of statistics available to me would enable me to understand faster and better the situation in which we find ourselves.

Jul 27, 2008 - 10:04 pm 20. Doug:

You thought NIMBYs were bad enough,
The Left has now gone completely BANANAs:
Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:11 am 21. Wadeusaf:

I like to build snowmen that look like Bart Simpson. The wet snow…, erm light hail, allows for quite graphic detail and startling too, especially since at a couple of inches above sea level all my efforts should have been swept away by salt water sea models of the established myths du jour.

Maybe I’ll depict Bart mooning Al Gore this winter.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:14 am 22. Sam Hall:

I use prediction models (not climate ones) all the time. If you can’t give a model accurate data to start with, then the output is not accurate. Sounds oblivious doesn’t it? Well, the AGW fools think that they can use crude estimates for only a few of the many inputs required for climate prediction and expect to get an accurate output.

It seems clear to me that they know the answers they want and have built models to give them those answers and allow them to claim that the answers are “scientific” data.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:55 am 23. Wadeusaf:

“It seems clear to me that they know the answers they want and have built models to give them those answers and allow them to claim that the answers are “scientific” data.”

Well it needs to be said that for data and hypothisi to be considered “Scientific” they need to be forged with the rigor of Scientific methodology. The global warmongers and climate chantolgists are proposing we neglect this critical aspect because…,”just because it isn’t so doesn’t mean it couldn’t be so?”

And that is all the proof needed to be off on another romp through the garden of democracy, stepping on the plants, kicking at the the seed stock and picking at the sprouting plants. ["Oh but these ones (The weeds) look so much prettier."] Singing all the while that wonderful ditty,

I’d like to be,
under the sea,
in an octopuses garden
in the shade.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:26 am 24. Teresita:

Evidence is piling up that global warming is on hold, and there might even be a cooling trend now. So with the time pressure of wanting to act before the observational data begins to pile up against their case, there will be a tendancy to want to set aside other issues which might delay policy change on the environment.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:26 am 25. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights:

[...] warming and snow in Sydney and summer in [...]

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:10 am 26. exhelodrvr:

Utopia,
“If Greg Norman can lead the British Open in 2008 it can snow in Australia in 2008″

You’ve hit on the problem with the global warming model – they just need to use Tiger Woods as the predictor of warming trends, not Greg Norman!

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:53 am 27. Charles:

I buy the opinion that the shaper of earth weather is the sun. That carbon dioxide cycles may be coincidental rather than causal. The current weather in australia tracks well with the enormous amounts of snow in the US west this past winter and the huge build up of arctic ice in the last year.

What has happened in the last year or so on the sun?

We have entered a solar minimum. (Scroll down to the bottom of the link to see graphic of the 12 year solar cycle. Here is way too much information on solar cycle 24 which we are entering.

Solar flares give off an enormous amount of energy which translates to heat on earth.

What does it mean to be at the solar flare minimum?

When the sun is not so hot as it is right now–things chill out on earth.

Here is a National Geographic article from last year that points out that Mars warming suggests further that the sun is the cause of hot & cold cycles.

The last little ice age from 1645 to 1715 corressponded with the Maunder Minimum…a period when the sunspot cycle stopped and there were no sun spots.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:20 am 28. Me:

Does everyone realize we are in la nina’ ?

The only thing perpetual about climate is CHANGE.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:35 am 29. John Blake:

Science is three things: A philosophy, a method, and a practice.

Science is a philosophy of the natural world: Objective reality is intelligible, rational (non self-contradictory), universal (stable within Space and Time). This world is worth study in its own right, deriving simply stated principles of unfathomable subtlety. Mystics, psychics, solipsists need not apply.

Scientific Method is empirical, experimental: Formulate a falsifiable, testable hypothesis; design requisite experiments capable of verifying it; conduct the experiments and report all –repeat, all– outcomes, negative as well as positive, to qualified experts (”peers”) for thoroughgoing and above all transparent evaluation and review.

In practice, science is a social enterprise. “Peer review” exists not only to place hypotheses in context and perspective (perpetual motion advocates, charletons such as Lysenko and Velikovosky find no audience) but above all to duplicate results. Like “cold fusion,” where disinterested, independent forums cannot validate conclusions, all else fails.

In science, a Theory is a proven hypothesis, validated from different angles by multiple procedures over time. Theories need not be complete, as classic Newtonian mechanics became subsumed in General Relativity admixed with quantum-physical statistics. But Darwinian Evolution (for example), explicated by Mendelian genetics, traced by biochemists
as Watson and Crick’s astounding Double Helix, verified by powerful genomic principle, is no more amenable to attitudinal refutation than is thermodynamics to Perpetual Motion types.

“Mad Scientist” is a cliche. In reality, Mad Demagogues, Mad Politicians of every stripe periodically inflict their monomaniacal delusions of grandeur on rent-seeking populations persuaded that something-for-nothing is but a slogan away.

Today’s exhibits include Al Gore, Obama, among other atavistic retrogressives of their collectivist/Statist ilk. Science, including disciplines such as political economics, refutes their barking dogmas root-and-branch. Alas, since when has humble realism ever trumped overweening arrogance, callous pretention, appeals to self-destructive nihilism as a force for good?

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:35 am 30. Roderick Reilly:

I’ve been struck by the way climate change is viewed as a catastrophic event by the alarmist/activist crowd.

One of the most bizzarely illogical reactions was from a Swiss glacier expert, who pointed out that glaciers in Switzerland have been receding of late. He then pointed out that over 3,000 years ago (that would be in the final stages of the Bronze Age, when the climate in Europe was milder than it is now), the glaciers were at least 1,000 meters further receded than is the case today. He pointed out with alarm that Switzerland’s glaciers may recede that far again!

I was flummoxed? Hello? Did the Bronze Age Swiss have a problem with this? And when the weather got cooler a couple of centuries later (coincidentally ushering in the Iron Age), did the Iron Age Swiss kvetch about that? Maybe, maybe not. It was a time of profound change, and not just because of the introduction of iron tools and weapons. Germanic tribes expanded, pushing southward and westward into Celtic territories. The climate change may have had something,to do with it.

The AGW crowd isn’t so much about environmentalism as it is about being reactionary in the most irrational way. They fear change to the “nth” degree. Their enemy is the very Nature they so claim to revere, but they refuse to acknowledge this, and turn on Humanity as the culprit instead.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:52 am 31. Tarnsman:

I recommend a daily reading of Anthony Watts blog Watts Up With That. Methinks the AGW crowd is going to have to do some serious explaining in the years to come. Seems the Sun and Earth aren’t living up to their expectations. With the Sun continuing to be in a prolonged “downtime” things just might get a bit chilly. I think it’s only fair that we call the coming cooling trend The Gore Minimum.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:23 am 32. RWE:

People don’t realize that what we call “climate” is an average of what has happened for as long as records have been kept. Here in Florida the first half of the year was the driest I have seen. Then June and July were unusually wet, with the result that we are now back to “normal” in terms of rainfall.

Climate does change. I understand that until the late 1880’s hurricanes used to hit the coast of California quite regularly, with the moisture from them flowing up into the southwest and midwest U.S. This then led to the Dust Bowl, when the weather went back to what we call “normal” for an extended period, and the middle of the country dried out. We could go back to the earlier weather patterns, and no doubt the result would be heralded as the worst disaster in history as all those multi-million dollar houses slid down those collapsing hills, – and it would all be blamed on Global Warming.

If you have worked in DC you can see where Global Warming comes from. It is the result of all those Congressmen and their aides (around 23,000 people all total) warming those chairs for extended periods. The scientific community knows what kind of dog and pony show it takes to enable them to pursue their personal ambitions and reacts accordingly.

By the way, I take heart in the fact that Global Warming is now called Climate Change. When the Left started losing the Gun Control debate they changed the name to Gun Safety. They know things are coming unzipped.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:33 am 33. Jay:

I have analyzed several water temperature time series using a statistical method that I have developed and published. There is not stable cycle in the el nino temps nor is there any stable time structure in the Darwin data.
But there are stable cycles in the sun’s radiation due to a proven theory of the mechanism for a star’s high temperature. Also the daily sun spots have a stable cycle with some variation.
I once visited a young physicist at the Harwell climate laboratory in England. We discussed some of my work. I asked him how they calibrated their model with data. He told me that there are not enough data point of the Earth per year plus insufficiently long time series for them to calibrate the model. Then he said “I don’t really believe in our predictions but I have to make a living”. This from a scientist in one of the world’s best climate shops.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:57 am 34. Navytech:

And let’s not forget what has always driven climate: the sun. And it’s 11, uh 12, uh, 13 (and counting) year sunspot cycle. They’re going to start up again RSN. Really.

For those that think we can’t do anything about CO2, the sun getting a “rough idle” is REALLY scary.

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:24 am 35. Doug:

Too bad we don’t always have the opportunity of hindsight to come up with the the perfect response:

““I don’t really believe in our predictions but I have to make a living””
—
“Yeah, so does everybody else, but they’re not all Whores!”

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:27 am 36. Alexis:

What’s the difference between climate prediction and astrology?

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:44 am 37. Herb:

All of these models supposedly predict “average” global temperatures. Could somebody tell me what the current average Global temp is? Average or Mean is a statistical term with a precise definition and refers to a value that grows out of a Normal Distribution. Coupled with the Standard Deviation, the mean defines the shape of that distribution. Further to the above question, What is the standard deviation from the Mean Global Temperature?

Now interpret that data.

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:02 pm 38. LarryD:

Alexis: “What’s the difference between climate prediction and astrology?”

Answer: Astrologers know better than to make refutable predictions.

Models sanity check

“A study in the Royal Metereological Society journal did just that, focusing on the best available evidence of the past 25 years. Measuring instruments have improved immensely in accuracy and coverage in recent decades, using satellites, weather balloons and surface sensors.

“Alas, all 22 math models use by the United Nations failed to predict the last twenty-five years. “

Watts up with that: “January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.

“Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics – 3 of four show a flat trendline. “

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:03 pm 39. fred:

The foregoing discussion about the reliability of climate modeling should inculcate some needed humility about any claims for the models for man made global warming. I’ve read dozens of these kinds of discussions elsewhere, and this one is certainly one of the higher quality discussions, given the fact that most of us are not scientists, just smart people who can think logically and ask the right questions. But, then again we can do this here because we are not in the controlled echo chambers on the other side of the issue. If we were academics, we’d have to meet in secret or exchange e-mails using high encryption software, so as not to get ourselves fired, de-funded, or just plain slandered.

We cannot even predict shifts in ocean currents or when the jet stream is going to shift and to what degree the shift will be. The very idea that we can construct adequate algorithms for computer modeling of the earth’s climate is simply absurd. I just do not believe it can be done.

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:30 pm 40. DanM:

Thank You Herb!

I haven’t seen the data, or seen an explanation that defines it in those terms. It may be out there, but it is not readily available… Anyone help here?

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:58 pm 41. Al_Batross:

fred:
I think you are probably correct about modeling the climate, but consider this:
Sydney is in the southern hemisphere.
The Chaiten volcano in Chile is in the southern hemisphere.
Chaiten ejected a huge amount of ash into the jetstream.
It is now winter in the southern hemisphere.
Although the ash was reported to be low-sulpher, there was so much of it that I don’t think it would be unreasonable to expect a wetter winter down there ?

Jul 28, 2008 - 1:12 pm 42. Robert Speirs:

Volcanoes and other unpredictable phenomena make it even more difficult to construct a model that works to predict future temperature from past data. For instance, in the nineteenth century several huge volcanic events affected the temperature for many months or years. Same for the twentieth. We can expect several this century. Who can predict what effect these events will have? If the Yellowstone caldera went up, we’d have an ice age. How does a climate model based on CO2 take that into account?

Jul 28, 2008 - 1:44 pm 43. Al_Batross:

Robert Speirs:
Volcanic activity is hard to predict, but my point was that some of the effects of “normal” volcanic activity do fit into a general pattern, with cooler summers and wetter winters.
The significant factor is the quantity and quality of ash, and where it ends up, and we might be able to model that data in a useful way. An event like Yellowstone or Cumbre Veja would be “normal” only in terms of geological history. In human terms it would be catastrophic, killing millions of us, radically altering the course of human historty, and remaking the world climatically and geographically.

Jul 28, 2008 - 2:26 pm 44. Ammo Guy:

If these so-called “modeling” programs were empirically based upon thousands of years of precise measurements of our climate, perhaps I could be a “little persuaded,” but we’ve only had satellites and scientific instruments of sufficient discernment and reliability for a half century so it’s all suspect to me. I don’t believe any of it…I guess I’m just in denial.

Jul 28, 2008 - 2:33 pm 45. StephenB:

The PDF opened up fine on my copy of Windows Vista. We can’t even predict how our software will work…

Jul 28, 2008 - 2:38 pm 46. ZZMike:

If this Global Warming thing keeps up, we’re all going to freeze to death.

Jul 28, 2008 - 3:11 pm 47. Pascal:

Doug: One unassailable fact seems to be that if “Global Warming” IS caused by man made CO2, there is no known way mankind could do anything of significance about it.

LOL. Like our “Progressives” will take that for an answer. They’re more like this:

Talk? I don’t expect you to talk Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.

Jul 28, 2008 - 3:43 pm 48. RWE:

A few years back I recall seeing not one but TWO Democrat congresscritters – in series – criticize the Bush Admin’s economic predictions by saying “Look, it’s April and it snowed in Washington DC today. We can’t even predict the weather accurately and the Administration claims it can predict the economy.”

And these are the very same people who insist that the Global Warming climate models are accurate 50 or 100 years out.

Navytech: We have been observing the Sun scientifically for over 100 years and in a less rigorous manner for some thousands of years before that. And the latest solar observations show that the currents
on the Sun that predict future sunspot activity are at the LOWEST LEVEL ever recorded. By 2020 we will be at a solar minimum that could well be below anything ever seen before. The Sun is throttling back. But never fear, that is one reason why they are now calling it Climate Change rather than Global Warming. So the immense bureacracy they want to create will be able to cover all the options.

The worrisome thing is, though, that the default position is now one to accept Global Warming to some degree. Even the people who think it is all just a big scam seem to have accepted that we will have to undertake at least some token measures.

It’s like someone said back in the 80’s. If the Democrats established a position that required the US Capitol to be burned down, the Republicans would counter-propose that the task be done in a series of small fires rather than one big one.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:10 pm 49. fred:

RWE,

Those “token measures” will amount to one of the biggest wealth transfers in the history of humanity. And these fines we will be compelled to pay will go to one of the most corrupt institutions in the modern world. That money will neither arrest man made global warming nor do anything constructive for poorer nations, except make the middlemen richer.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:21 pm 50. RWE:

Fred: You are absolutely right. Follow the money is the name of the game. Some would have us believe that it was a complete coincidence that so many of the people who opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom were either being bribed by Saddam or otherwise had a financial interest in seeing that Iraq remained as it was.

But it’s worse than that. I am fully convinced that one reason that Global Warming is so popular is that it forms a basis for outfits such as insurance companies to request a government bail-out. After all, if hurricanes cause billions of dollars in losses to them and the cause is NOT an “Act of God” but is accepted to be due to “all of us”, well, who ya’ gonna call? Or blame? The bail-outs of the bad housing loans is a precedent. Next, I could see farmers asking for Global Warming bail-outs, and retailers, and so on. It just never stops. And they intend to see that it never does.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:28 pm 51. PharmaGuy:

As a practicing chemist I have followed the whole AGW “discussion” with much interest and a large dose of skepticism. One quite interesting book I am reading now is “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum” by William Ruddiman,(2005, Princeton Univ. Press) a retired Professor of Environmental Science at U-VA. The subtitle of the book is “How humans took control of climate”. Control isn’t quite the right term, but Ruddiman makes an interesting case that human activity, especially agriculture, has been significantly influencing climate for the last 5000-10000 years, long before the industrial revolution of the last 200 years. Lots of charts of orbital precession, wobble and ellipticity to explain the natural cycles upon cycles that will put a lot variability to climate over 1000s of years, the evidence for 40-50 glacial episodes over the last 2.5 million years, etc. And how the methane and CO2 data dont fit what up then had been well behaved, cycles. Haven’t finished it yet, but the style so far has been scientific- complete with doubts and uncertainities expressed honestly. Well worth a read.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:57 pm 52. bobal:

I too was taken with the global warming idea for awhile. And, I have tried to follow the argument best I can. There is a big disagreement on the facts. One thing that has been pointed out to me is what a gold mine the idea is for social planners. This I think is very scary.

I’m going to be voting for McCain. He at least is not fearful of the words nuclear energy. If we want to clean up our environment, that is the way to go. All the other ideas like solar and wind are good too. Let’s get something done. I don’t see that the democrats and Obama have any ideas here, other than to say ‘no’ to everything.

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:09 pm 53. Kevin:

When it gets hotter, it’s evidence of global warming. When it gets colder, it’s evidence of global… warming?

So it looks to me like AGW is not capable of being falsified, and so (per Karl Popper anyway) can’t be considered scientific. As if there were need for more reasons to be suspicious of a “consensus” maintained through the suppression of dissent.

Western Europe is ramping up its use of coal. Al Gore owns at least 3 huge gas guzzlers. Mere elitism, or evidence that they don’t really believe it?

Jul 29, 2008 - 11:29 pm 54. Steve:

For those interested in the projection abilities of Climate Models might want to check out

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361

Lots of other good stuff here too including Solar Scientist Leif Svalgaard.

Jul 30, 2008 - 1:08 pm 55. philw1776:

Add me to those recommending Anthony Watts blog
whatsupwiththat.com
He is a skeptic but not an ideolog who uses his years as a meteoroligist to examine and criticize those very ground ‘truth’ weather stations that make up the data net used to feed in temperatures. It’s shocking how badly sited many of them are. Lots of interesting, somewhat technical but readable information.

Jul 31, 2008 - 12:55 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.