Free Markets, Free People

Damned Global Warming Skeptics

Why don’t they just shut up!

The science is settled! We have consensus.

Well, except for those 32,000 American scientists who have signed a petition saying they don’t agree that anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming is threatening society as we know it.

And now we have another one – another skeptical scientist who attempts to enlighten the cult of AGW as to how the science actually works.  I’ll let him lay it out:

So why the fuss lately about man-made global warming? The melting Arctic? Do you know we’ve only been monitoring the extent of Arctic ice via satellites since 1979? And while Arctic ice coverage has declined, it’s actually been rising since 2006. And have you heard Antarctic sea ice has increased by nearly 14% since 1979?

The global warming crowd is quick to blame the release of carbon dioxide thru the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil, gasoline, natural gas, and coal, for warming our climate and setting us on a path for doom.

Since before the industrial revolution the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising, up to around 385 parts per million by volume today. That amounts to a miniscule 0.0385% of the atmosphere. Increased CO2 levels are beneficial to plants since they require carbon dioxide to grow. In this experiment, plants exposed to CO2 levels of 1,090 parts per million by volume by far exhibited the most growth.

So, does carbon dioxide drive the climate? The answer is no!

Natural cycles play a much bigger role with the sun at the top of the list. A look at total solar irradiance since 1600 shows a distinct correlation to temperature readings. Readings are higher now than anytime in the past 400 years!

Then there’s El Nino Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation, the Arctic Oscillation, the Pacific-North American Teleconnection, Milankovitch forcing, ocean variations, and so on and so forth.

Is there any way to model all these variables? Again, the answer is no! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has tried and failed!

Back in 2001 the IPCC released a suite of computer model solutions depicting the future state of the atmosphere. These reports by the IPCC are used repeatedly to drive policy around the world. But, if you look at what’s happened since then, global temperatures are actually on a downward trend, whether you look at actual thermometer readings across the world or satellite-derived temperatures. This when the IPCC models were predicting continued warming.

Can you believe it? Another one who insists models at least be able to model what is happening by using all the variables? And that the models be able to actually predict what is happening instead of modeling something that isn’t?

What’s up with demands like that?! We’ve heard from the oracle, he’s told us the earth has a fever and that’s that.

Gore said it, enough “scientists” believed it and that ends it!

Now let’s get that cap-and-trade bill through the Senate and save the planet.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

62 Responses to Damned Global Warming Skeptics

  • .. and then there is this guy …

    And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses.

    … and it makes you question …

    “I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture,” Obama said

  • The 32,000 thing has been debunked.  Turns out most don’t even have Ph.D.s, hardly any are climate scientists, and some probably don’t exist.  Also, the guy who did it earlier in his career was part of the fight to convince people with similar tactics that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.   Belief in the 32,000 is politically motivated ignorance.

    Funny how you think one person talking about various factors somehow trumps the numerous studies that have looked at this from all angles, with climate scientists (the people aren’t just pulling this from their political arses) moving recently from “likely” human caused to “very likely” (meaning that while there is always some uncertainty, that uncertainty level is low).

    You are taking a politically motivated position, trying to find anything to support it, ignoring all that doesn’t.  In short, you are anti-rational, anti-science, anti-logic, and your style of non-thinking is part of the problem in this country — a problem that must be overcome.

    • The 32,000 thing has been debunked. See, “debunked” is a magic term that we on the left use to dismiss something that’s inconvenient. The Swift Boat guys were debunked too, and therefore it’s been proven that Kerry was a stainless knight who would never lie about anything and all fifty of the Swift Boat guys were politically motivated liars. I decree it.

      Just like the people on this 32,000 thing. Turns out most don’t even have Ph.D.s like me and other wise leftists. Hardly any are climate scientists, and of course Al Gore isn’t either, but still. Some probably don’t exist, or at least that’s what the talking points list on the leftist web sites said. Also, the guy who did it earlier in his career was part of the fight to convince people with similar tactics that cigarettes don’t cause cancer. And no, I don’t have to deliver any links on that – you must spend your own time to dig all that stuff up because I’m a wise leftist with a PhD and no time to research anything in this area except to read the leftist talking points, and you’re just supposed to believe anything I say. Belief in the 32,000 is politically motivated ignorance.

      Funny how you think one person talking about various factors somehow trumps the numerous studies that have looked at this from all angles. See how I’ve moved it from 32,000 to one person? Clever, don’t you agree? That’s the kind of rhetoric they teach we wise leftists, because we have to really simplify things down to deal with you dense righties. I try and try to educate you, spending my time here when I could be conversing with other wise leftists, and it’s all because I have to simplify the arguments and try to get you ex-military basket cases to see the elegant wisdom of wise leftist thought. And I certainly don’t come here to find someone to talk down to so that I can validate my own self-worth in the face of overwhelming evidence that I’m just a nobody hiding from reality at an obscure cow college, writing books no one with read and teaching students who wish to God they were somewhere else, so you must absolutely stop saying all of that!!! I decree it.

      And of course climate scientists (the people aren’t just pulling this from their political arses) moved recently from “likely” human caused to “very likely”. Yes, those guys are certainly not politically motivated, and so you don’t need to look at their funding, no sir, and I don’t have to cite any links to support what I just said. It’s true, it’s true, it’s true, all of it!! Don’t you understand that I have godlike powers of political science and that I can just decree stuff and you have to accept it? Don’t you get it?

      You are taking a politically motivated position, trying to find anything to support it, ignoring all that doesn’t. And I’m not doing that! I’m not, I’m not, I’m not!! And stop asking me for links to support my stuff!! Aren’t leftist talking points enough? I’m sure other wise leftists have made sure they’re 100% correct. Just like all the Swift Boat debunking.

      In short, you are anti-rational, anti-science, and anti-logic. And the fact that I believe in the self-contradictory philosophy of post-modernism doesn’t make me anti-logic!! It doesn’t, I tell you! You guys just don’t understand post-modernism, as I’ve told you a hundred times, but it means that anything advocated by leftists is logical and brilliant and anything advocated by dense righties is flawed, anti-rational, and politically motivated.

      And your style of non-thinking is part of the problem in this country — a problem that must be overcome. And we wise leftists have figured out how to overcome it. We just take all your money and make you constantly toe the line to wise leftist bureaucrats until you are broken to the harness. We’ve been working on it for decades, and we’re just about done.

      And the fact that I don’t back up anything I say and depend solely on leftist talking points and am not qualified to judge any of this climate stuff anyway is not evidence of non-thinking!!! It’s not!!! Stop saying that!!!!!!!!

    • Scott,
       
      Could you point us to the debunking of the 32,000 scientists not convinced of global warming?  It is interesting that you, as an academic, insist that not having a PhD is some kind of a disqualifier.  Why do you claim that?  You also do not explain why disbelief in AGW is “politically motivated ignorance”.  My counter arguments are the Mann hockey stick curve and the series of errors made by Hanson.
       
      In addition, no one, to my knowledge, has ever proven the efficacy of these climate models.  They have been unable to prove the past without fudge factors.  We know the hurricane models (living in South Florida, I pay attention to them) give varying results and there is a significant margin or error.  That is why there is a cone rather than a straight line.  It has always seemed to me that if we cannot predict a chaotic system three days out, how can anyone write a model that adequately predicts weather and climate a hundred years out.
       
      You end with a claim that anyone who opposes AGW is taking a ” politically motivated position”.  Are you clarly arguing those who support AGW are not politically motivated?  How do you explain, then, that the research money goes primarily to those favoring AGW?  Your statement that those opposing AGW are “are anti-rational, anti-science, anti-logic” is absurd on its face.  Your sole support of your position is a series of “ad hominems”.  In short, you do offer impressive support for your point of view (and it is merely a point of view).
       
      Rick

      • Whoops, typo.  Last sentence should be “In short, you do NOT offer impressive support for your point of view (and it is merely a point of view)”.
         
        Rick

    • You know what I’ve noticed, Erb? Rick Caird has engaged you politely and logically in more than one thread on this topic. You have scrupulously avoided responding to him on point. He’s raised several points in logic, statistics, and data, and you refuse to answer him.

      Why are you such a coward?

  • Funny how you think one person talking about various factors somehow trumps the numerous studies that have looked at this from all angles

    What studies?  Name a few and lets see how many of them have been debunked already.  Pretty much all, by my count.  But name them, at least you will learn something, if you are able.

    While we are playing the whole argument from authority thing. What is your PhD in Scott?  Is it in science?  No it isn’t, so how can you tell whether the studies aren’t written on the equivalent of toilet paper?

    You are taking a politically motivated position, trying to find anything to support it, ignoring all that doesn’t.

    hahahah. Pot meet kettle.  You just don’t see the irony of your whole argument do you?

  • Actually let me use stronger language.  The entire science is a massive fraud.
    Not only do the facts not match any model since the late nineties, the mathematics used to come up with these models is deliberately fraudulent.
    It is in fact a Bernie Madoff level of fraud.

  • Pretty much everything you wrote in your second paragraph is wrong. Since you never respond, I’m not sure if it’s ignorance or an outright lie.

  • Sorry, that was directed at Scott Erb’s comment.

  • Two words, Bruce.
    “We won”.
    Nothing else sways these people now.

  • the global warming cultists will not rest until the deniers are dead or arrested for crimes against humanity,nothing will satisfy these environazis bloodlust until we are round up and put before a firing squad for not believing in them

  • I’m curious how they determined what the solar irradiance was back in 1600. That claim kind of sticks out like a fart in a quiet theatre. I suppose C14 might be a proxy, but it isn’t a direct measurement. A bit more explanation of that point would lend the article more credibility.

  • LOL! Good Stuff OTT

  • Scott Erb, please your witty reply is needed.  With all the links and documentation.  Paging Mr. Erb.  Scott Erb…[bueller?]  Scott Erb?  Scott Erb?  I guess Axelrod only pays Erb to leave 1 comment, then when reality hits, abort! abort!

  • The theory of carbon dioxide contributing to global warming does not survive well-studied and understood science.
    The theory is that radiative heat (photons in the infrared range) leaving earth get trapped by CO2, the fabled greenhouse effect.
    Trouble is, CO2 is well known to trap such photons, in three specific ranges, but it does it very efficiently. 99 percent of the infrared heat that CO2 can trap is already being trapped, as verified by satellite sensing.
    So, add more CO2, no more heat to be trapped, ergo no greenhouse effect, ergo no carbon-dioxide-based global warming, manmade or otherwise.

  • Want to go down the list of how many “climate scientists” aren’t even climatologists?  Start with Hansen.  No field of study in climatology.  He is an astrophysicist. Before there was “global warming” there was “global cooling” … from about 1945 till about 1975.  He claimed then that fossil fuels were causing cooling.  When temperatures warmed, he claimed fossil fuels are causing warming.  Everyone that has seen the data knows that there has been no warming since 2000.  There has been no sea level rise since 2006.  North America has been experiencing about a -0.8 degree/decade DECLINE in temperatures over the past decade.  Not talking about a one-year glitch here.  The only data showing a rise are data that have had increasingly high “adjustments” applied over the years thereby biasing the “temperature” upwards.
     
    The only thing rising is the “adjustments” applied to the data.

  •  Turns out most don’t even have Ph.D.s, hardly any are climate scientists, and some probably don’t exist.

    ***

    And yet that has never stopped you from endorsing those sorts of people when they agree with your position.

    God save us from Marxist hacks like you.

  • Scott Erb just forgot the sarc tag. Nice work Scott.  Even I had to read parts twice.

  • Here’s a video I made on April 8th of this year.  In order for global warming to be a fact, the earth would have to be getting increasingly warmer from year to year. In other words, 2009 would have to be warmer than 1999, since that is ten years of increasing greenhouse effect, according to the theory. But we know now for the last decade things have not been getting warmer.
    That is the inconvenient truth.

  • Last time I checked Reality wasn’t up for a vote. I don’t care how much “consensus” there is on either side. Anyone looking for Consensus isn’t doing science. What was the Consensus of planteary motion given by the Experts in Copurnicus’ time? Was the consensus Right? By the way, they called the experts then “priests”

    Nor does one need to be a climate expert in order to understand Global Warming, much less the analysis of data. Mann’s hockey stick was debunked because Mann didn’t know how to do Statistics and Math properly.

    If you are doing science you explain why the skeptics are wrong. You don’t tell them to shut up because you are smarter, or lots of people agree with you.

    Do you really think a climate lasting millions of years is dominated by positive feedback?
    If so, why didn’t CO2 destroy the planet millions of years ago when it was many times higher in concentration than it is now? Yeah, I know, I am not an expert. My questions are beneath your notice.

  • I can’t believe people actually believe in this global warming crap.  It’s the same old tripe that was pedeled in the 1980s.  They said Florida would be under water, but it’s 30 years later and Florida is still there.  Global warming is nothing more than junk science.

  • “That 32000 has been debunked.”
    That, my friends, is called a Bare Assertion.  State it as fact, back it up with nothing more that your personal authority or pomposity.
    Here’s a real fact, one that isn’t a Bare Assertion.  Al Gore’s home consumes 20 times the energy of the average American home.
    This is a fact.  You can spin it how you want, but it is more factual than just about anything in Gore’s argument.

  • Friends, the science has been settled. My trusty minion (Scott Erb) has told all of you flat earthers what you need to know.  If you don’t believe in man-made global warming then why have I made millions of dollars off of it?  I can only hope that Floridians move out of the state before the turn of the next century.

  • The current AGW excuse is that we are in for a “short” period of global cooling due to (insert BS reason here) but in 10-15 years the CO2 elevation takes over again AND THEN YOU’LL ALL BE SORRY YOU DIDN’T LISTEN TO US!  NYAH!.  As has been pointed out many, many times “Global Warming” is religion, not science.  Its strongest adherents are anti-technology, anti-Western philosophy Luddites who want to tear down “the Establishment” and re-order society to their liking.  The fact is that if the atmosphere were a 100-story building the top 78 floors would be Nitrogen, the bottom 22 floors would be Oxygen, and there’d be a slip of paper on the lobby floor marked, “Man-made CO2″.  There are lots of pollutants we need to stop spewing, yes.  There are good reasons to stop burning hydrocarbons for fuel and switch to more environmentally-friendly fuel sources.  Global Warming ain’t one of them.   It’s being used to scare people into doing something stupid and counterproductive aka, “Cap and Trade”.
    Cap and Trade is a TAX.  It would be completely and utterly useless for its stated purpose because the 2/3rds of the world spewing most of the CO2 isn’t interested in committing economic suicide.  It’s a huge tax that the political class hopes (against hope!) will enable them to continue borrowing and spending for one more generation, or at least until they are all safely retired or dead.  Any money collected by it will not be used to reduce carbon emissions:  it will be used to fund Porkulus-like spending programs to keep their base happy and voting for them.

  • There was the coming ice age in the seventies, then acid rain, nuclear winter, global warming, and now climate change.. each and every Earth about to end story picked up and the previous one dropped in the sea without a ripple.

    I have a mere high school education, some military training, and simply put,.

    I
    Don’t
    Believe
    You.

    Scotty me lad,. your kind was around eons ago telling chiefs to fling virgins into lava pools to appease the mountain, and Aztecs to harvest human hearts to please the flying serpent god.

    It’s about enfluence and power, money, your kind aspires to be the high priests of human salvation, beyond question or reproach. It’s the anti-science, anti0thinking types like you that held back mankind for so long. You can’t do it anymore, when the net allows us to indeed fact check and question your religion.

    Peddle that snake oil elsewhere sonny, ain’t buying it no mo.

  • Just to debunk one of the points of the “concensus” defender Erb:  First, I don’t have a PhD, I’ve got a Masters degree, does that render my observations invalid?  Secondly, why do those 32,000 all have to be climatologists?  I have over 20 years of experience in a field in which modeling and simulation has been a key element of my work.  I know how difficult it is to predict results when I have control of numerous elements of a real-world experience.  From that knowledge and experience, it is laughable when the AGW proponents knowingly assert that their models (based upon average temperature measurements extrapolated from tree ring data) can predict a 0.6 degree C temperature rise in the next 20 years when they have no control over any of the variables in their models?   Their models have been unable to predict what is happening, and we are supposed to destroy our economy based upon their predictions of what they assert will happen 20 to 50 years from now?
    Being statist means never having to say you are sorry after you have been proven wrong

  • Umm, that should have read “real-world test”, not real-world experience.

  • Al Gore, the Bernie Madoff of the Global Warming Hoax, will become a billionaire within a few years after this swindle is passed.  All of his friends should become very wealthy off of it while the common folks are reduced to serfdom by the effects of the Cap ‘N Trade laws they are trying to pass.

  • Every-single leaf that falls from a tree will decay and produce carbon. Every plant and animal (even tiny-little bugs) will produce carbon when it dies. Before these “True Believers” start raising taxes and changing economies, I want to see armies, I mean MILLIONS of these CO2 folks, combing the forests and the fields gathering fallen leaves and chaff with rakes and trash bags. I want them to come to my house and offer to rake my leaves and grass-clippings for free. I also think there is lots of CO2 going on if my rain-gutters are not clean.
    Of course, stripping the forests of natural litter and removing the chaff from the fields may not be good for the woodlands or food production, but it would sure make me think that these folks, at least, believe they crap they are shoveling.

    • HMPH! I’d settle for the global warming con artists to simply start living like they believe their own BS. You know: no more driving cars, flying in airplanes, living in huge houses, etc.

  • The fact that got to me was that greenhouse gases have been twenty times higher than today in earth’s history. Scientists have reconstructed past GHG-levels (using polar ice samples) and temperatures using various surrogate measures. These studies show no correlation between GHG levels and climate changes.
    If any, the cause and effect are reversed: temperatures go up and GHG then go up 900-1000 years later. Gore may even know this, so he uses a one hundred-thousand year interval in his graph for his speeches, which hides this fact between the lines. Maybe a reason why he refuses to debate this with anyone as well.
    Solar activity is the main driver to climate in addition to numerous natural cycles that show inevitable and predictable oscillations over time.  We are now in solar cycle 24, which is the lowest number of sun spots in a hundred years. Since the colder temperatures since 2006, which were preceded by flat temperatures from 1998-2006. It will get colder and not improve until 2030.
    For all of the links and studies, please see several articles on my blog: http://www.mottsblog.blogspot.com.
    Thanks.
    Randy Mott
     
     
     

  • Actually, growing up in the 70’s and 80’s we were told that the earth was going into an ice age.  The big environment arguments back then were “water” (we wouldn’t have enough in 15 years to water the crops to feed Americans because we were wasting too much of it), litter (which was actually a good thing to harp on and it had a positive impact) and the forthcoming “ice age” that was supposed to have been here in the late 1990’s.
    When it comes to climate, it is too complex for any one science to grasp.  I find it shocking how most people have this grandiose idea of how “advanced” humans are in understanding things of such a grand scale.  We don’t know jack when it comes down to it, but common sense can tell us a lot.  When I view an argument for global warming and the “science” contradicts common sense, I immediately have to question why.   Imagine all of the groundbreaking theories that would have been tossed to the side if the “consensus” had won every science argument in the past.  We’d still be listening to AM radios for entertainment.  No one would know who Einstein was and Tesla would have been an unknown as well.
    Science is all about skepticism.  That is a scientist’s main job.  Global warming is just another money making venture.  I believe most people who believe in it and push it have good intentions.  But good intentions doesn’t mean it’s true.  We got through the computer bubble, then the internet bubble and are still trying to get through the housing bubble that just collapsed.  I look forward to the “green bubble” that is being created now to fully mature.  The only good thing about the “green bubble” is that it will take a while before it pops.  The very same reason why no one can definitely state man-made global warming is truth of fiction: climate is measured in decades, not days.   That will keep the “green bubble” floating for quite a while.

  • It does not matter whether the earth is heating up, or not. It does not matter whether man has contributed to it, or not. “Man” likely can’t do a dang thing about it without putting us all into virtual slavery. I’m not for that, so I’m not for doing anything about it… in a collective sense. Each of us should be free to do our own thing in response to it, like selling coastal land short if we think Florida is about to subside in the rising tide. Or not, if we don’t. If you live in an island nation, and you’re worried about melting glaciers, move. Yea, it’s hard, but that’s life. Trying to get in the way of inevitability is a fool’s errand. Shy of slavery, the independent actions of free men and women in a free market are the only viable “solution”. Live with it.

  • When people are reduced to claiming that astro-physicists don’t have the ability to critically examine the science because they aren’t climate scientists…  that should be a clue.
    Fields of science are highly specialized…  scientific method is not.
    I once had someone tell me that Freeman Dyson did not have the scientific creds necessary to determine that the computer models of a natural system left so much out they were useless.
    It’s an amazing thing when in order to uphold the fantasy of “consensus” someone like Freeman Dyson gets shown the door.

  • As the number of variables in a data set approach infinite, the probability of achieving any useful data approaches zero.

  • Has anyone heard of  Eugene Richard?  He came up with a theory that the magnetic field drives climate through its reversals and that we are entering into a new cooling period/reversal wich coincides more with reality than this  greenhouse gas stupidity. Check it out here.   http://www.earthsgeomotor.com/

  • wow, Scott Erb really gets around. I am unfortunately acquainted with his typical liberal hack tactics.
    Scott is a serial liar and name-caller. He cannot dispute facts so he tries to discredit people. For example, he claims here that the petition has been debunked because

    “Turns out most don’t even have Ph.D.s”

    But he fails to note that over 9,000 do have PhD’s. And that among those without PhD’s are some of the most brilliant scientists of our time, like Freeman Dyson of Cornell University and the Royal Society, one of the most famous and accomplished physicists of our time — who only earned a BA degree and whose doctorate’s are honorary. Nor does he note that the petition has far more support among all levels of scientists, including PhD’s, than does the UN’s computer models — which truly have been debunked seeing as they cant even accurately predict CURRENT climate, let alone the future.
    Erb then goes on to claim that

    the guy who did it earlier in his career was part of the fight to convince people with similar tactics that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

    Whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. The truth is that the petition was started by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and President of Rockefeller University.
    And true to form, he laughably concludes with projection:

    You are taking a politically motivated position, trying to find anything to support it, ignoring all that doesn’t.

    Hilarious when you consider it is the IPCC’s computer models, upon which ALL claims of anthropogenic global warming are based, that have been proven in peer reviewed studies to be incapable of predicting anything close to current climate when fed known past climate quantities; when it is the IPCC report’s summary that was written by politicians, not scientists; and when it is he and the rest of the left that completely ignores all this, and the rest of the mountain of evidence damning anthropogenic climate change and smear those who present it as “discredited” or “deniers” or even criminals and nazis.
    He is nothing but a hack who presents NO facts, and if anyone has been discredited, it is him.

  • What C02 does drive is Al Gore’s wallet.

  • We have regular “Global Warming Updates” (tongue in cheek) regularly on COMMON CENTS…
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    ps.  Link Exchange??

  • If Mr. Erb was REALLY serious about “Man-Made Global Warming” ™ then he should probably keep his yap shut. The amount of BS he spews must have a gargantuan carbon footprint.

  • As a college professor myself, (in the field of Computing Sciences) I have to say that the whole “Global Warming” (aka Global Cooling last century), sometimes called Global Change really should be called “Global Control.” Also know as “Social Control.”

    It is all about forcing people to not live their lives fully through controlling their energy. And forcing them to live a certain way…I think we saw that with the Church and Kings in the Middle Ages. (I did take a couple Humanities, History & Social Sciences (the courses on the way to my degrees.)

    The “Globe” will ALWAYS change. It is not a static environment. It is chaotic (teach Math of Chaos in one of my courses and the importance of Chaos) and Chaos is very important to life on earth. We never would have existed if the Earth hadn’t changed from the rock it started as “way back when.”

    The prevent “Global Change” group just doesn’t want anyone to recognize that “Change” is inevitable. And if my farting on a hot summer day causes the ice fields to collapse, well then “my bad.”

    Social control is the real key. Otherwise Al Gore would be living in a hut riding his bicycle* to his next speaking engagement. And we never would hear of him, because of the “every search on Google uses the energy to heat up two cups of tea” concerns.
    ———

    *bicycling is the most efficient mode of transportation of mass X over distance Y. But you can’t quite bicycle to space…there are limits.

  • The historical records show that higher temperatures come BEFORE higher levels of CO2; when one of the AGW cultists can explain how what they claim is a cause comes after what they claim is an effect, I’ll take them seriously.

    (In Al Gore’s religious tract “An Inconvenient Truth(sic)”, he reversed the two. It’s for other people to determine whether he did so out of dishonesty or stupidity.)

  • Hey, we won’t hear the state-run media tell us that Algore has made nearly $100 million dollars on this scam.
    As a Christian, I believe that God is in control of the planet, not creeps like Gore.

  • Turns out most don’t even have Ph.D.s, hardly any are climate scientists
    He must be talking about the IPCC report .. where most are political apparatchiks

  • I’m an environmental scientist who has studied climate change since 1978, long before it became fashionable, and have read most of the scientific research regarding climate change.  I’d like to think I can make an informed opinion on global warming, but my opinion means nothing, as the planet doesn’t really care about our opinions.  Here’s a few rhetorical questions to the readers of this website:
    1)  What would the temperature or related effects have to be to convince a person that global warming is occurring?
    2)  If natural global warming were occurring, would it ever be a good idea to try to slow it down?  I live in a house behind a river in an area that naturally flooded every year before a levee was built.  Was it a bad idea to build an artificial levee to prevent natural flooding?
    3) If there was less than a five percent chance your house would ever be burned down in a house fire, would you still buy fire insurance?

    • And here are a couple for you Glenn – what is the optimum temperature of “the globe”? How can man achieve that temperature optimum?

      No one has to convince me that the globe is warming since, for the last ten years, it has been cooling according to the literature I’ve read. However I understand completely that the only constant in the climate is change. Through millions of years the cycles are quite evident. What I don’t understand is why, when the “science” of AGW is mostly a product of models, which have been severely panned by many in the scientific community, a scientist worth his salt would commit himself to economy wrecking policies on the off chance that the modelers might be right?

      Forgive me, but that sounds more like faith than science to me.

    • I’m happy to answer your questions:

      “1) What would the temperature or related effects have to be to convince a person that global warming is occurring?”

      I believe the earth warms and cools on its own. It’s in a warming phase right now. I don’t believe that man has any effect on the warming/cooling trends, or at least that man’s effect is so small as to be negligible.

      “2) If natural global warming were occurring, would it ever be a good idea to try to slow it down? I live in a house behind a river in an area that naturally flooded every year before a levee was built. Was it a bad idea to build an artificial levee to prevent natural flooding?”

      I would argue that your analogy doesn’t hold water, pardon the pun. You’ve managed to control the effects of flooding in one small area, and that’s a good thing. But trying to prevent naturally-occurring global warming would be like trying to prevent the tides from rising and falling. Your efforts would be better spent finding ways to cope with the effects of nature, rather than preventing them.

      “3) If there was less than a five percent chance your house would ever be burned down in a house fire, would you still buy fire insurance?”

      That depends on the cost of the insurance. If the insurance costs less than 1/20 the value of my house, then it makes sense. But if the insurance costs 2x the value of my house, I would not.

      It’s not just the probability of the event that drives the decision, it’s the cost of doing so versus the cost of not doing so.

    • Simple enough.  As a (mere) programmer of various applications over the years, one of the things sane people do with systems that work is they run test data through them once the system has been written to prove the system works, either collecting or producing data.

      So, if the models are operating correctly, with known data they ought to be able to produce predictions of ‘current’ climate based on data from previous decades.  Simple enough. 

      Can they do that?   If they can’t then there’s a problem (a problem?  just one?  bwaaahahahahahaha) in the models.     “Fudge factors” employed to make it right are commonly called “Kludges” and any idiot programmer can get things to work with exceptions.  Problem is when they work to satisfy the exceptions, they frequently no longer work to satisfy the norms.

    • 1) What would the temperature or related effects have to be to convince a person that global warming is occurring?

      A Consistent trend upward that wasn’t lost in the nose of the instruments ( .16 degress per decade +/- .2) But assuming such a trend, what would prove it was man made? The temperature has been rising since 1850. Glaciers have been melting for 15000 years and CO2 has risen much higher in the past and was rising BEFORE man started putting a minisucle amount of CO2 in the air, but failed to destroy the planet. Why would a climate millions of years old be dominated by Positive Feedback effects? That makes no sense, does it?

      2) If natural global warming were occurring, would it ever be a good idea to try to slow it down?

      Maybe. If it was going to be a runaway positive feedback, which history has shown us it won’t be. In fact the planet, historically, has been much hotter (ave 22 degree centegrate for long periods) and supported more life when it was. I do not think it is obvious that a warmer planet is “bad”
      Nor is there a shred of evidence we puny little humans can do anything about climate.

      I live in a house behind a river in an area that naturally flooded every year before a levee was built. Was it a bad idea to build an artificial levee to prevent natural flooding?

      what would a global warming levee look like? Woundn’t that like building disater shelters if global wamring comes? Isn’t that a bit different that trying to stop the rain and the river from flooding?

      3) If there was less than a five percent chance your house would ever be burned down in a house fire, would you still buy fire insurance?

      If the insurance cost 17-1000x more than the house, no I wouldn’t.

      As compared to What?
      At What Cost?
      Do you have any Hard evidence of that?
      Who is do Decide?
      (4 questions Dr. Sowell invented to destroy any liberal position)

  • If we sequestered all the CO2 all the plants would die, then so would all the animals, from lack of Oxygen.

    The sun is a variable star. Lately – the last 10 years, it’s less intense. Before that Mars showed a global warming trend. C02 from Hummer tailpipes?

    Freeman Dyson is perhaps the most brilliant man since Einstien. Top five anyway.
    He says GW is not a viable theory. Anybody here smarter than him?

    The map is not the territory. The pilot chart is not the current sea state. A model is not the macro system.

    Plug 1900 data into the model and the predicted result does not match the historical data. Pick a set of data (multiple year), plug in the model extract a set of predictions, look at the historical data for the period predicted, oops.

    Follow the money.

  • Oh, one other thing:  your questions assume a fact that has not been established.  They assume that if global warming is natural, we can actually do something to prevent it.
    Exactly how do we prevent global warming?  It wouldn’t be by controlling emissions.  After all, the earth warmed and cooled long before man came on the scene.
    If global warming is natural, the concept of preventing it is as unworkable as the concept of preventing gravity.
     

  • “Was it a bad idea to build the levee?”

    Not if you are the contractor who built the levee, or the developer who built the houses.

    If you live downstream where the risk of flooding is increased by your levee, or are a taxpayer who picks up the tab for your house when the levee breaks, yes it was a bad idea.

  • Thank you for the reasoned responses, very helpful.  Good questions too, such as “What is the optimal temperature?”.  Well, I guess we may never know that one until it’s after the fact, or it could depend on where you live or what your species is.  For example, pikas, small mammals that live in mountainous areas tend to die of heat stress when it’s over 68 degrees F.  The same temperature would kill a thermophyllic bacteria because it’s too cold.  As for humans, I kind of like the temperatures we have right now (here in sunny California).  I suppose a warming planet is good for Siberia, but here out west, we could run out of easily accessible water in a hurry without our snowpack in the Sierras providing us with water through the annual summer drought.
    I’m of the school of thought that it is a good thing for people to try to moderate their environment for their own comfort, as long as it doesn’t cause more harm than good.  People have been doing this for a long time,  sometimes with success, such as all the sea walls built around the low part of Netherlands. If global warming were to occur with obvious results in the near future, I see no problem with trying to reduce the worst impacts.  I realize many believe there’s no way humans could ever influence the climate, but right now we are conducting a large “experiment” on a planetary scale by seeing how many greenhouse gases we can put into the atmosphere before we get to interesting climate tipping points.
    Related thought – if the planet has been cooling down since 1998, then that could mean global warming isn’t real.  However, what if next year is even hotter than 1998 – would that mean that global warming is real again?  Or are both temperatures anomalies?
    Other good questions posted here – these are probably rhetorical, as there are no good answers, but I think the intent is to provoke, not inform a discussion.  The questions were:
    As compared to What?
    At What Cost?
    Do you have any Hard evidence of that?
    Who is do Decide?
    I’m guessing the first one is something like “(You say there is global warming) as compared to what?”
    Good point, “warming” just implies warmer than before.  However, depending on your time frame, you could make the point that it’s a lot cooler now than at the time of the dinosaurs.  I suppose the only useful time frame would be the span of a human life.  If it’s significantly warmer now than 70-80 years ago, and might be warmer in 70-80 years from now, then that could be perceived as warming.
    “(We have to prevent global warming.) At what cost?”  I’m not an economist, but it seems to me that as long as the cost of prevention is less than the cost of repair/adaptation/cleaning up the mess, then the cost is reasonable.
    “Do you have any hard evidence of that”.  Me? Personally? I’ve seen glaciers shrinking from year to year with my own eyes, and I’ve seen less and less snow in the mountains.  I know, it could just be localized events.  I think the question answers itself, along the lines of “There is no evidence. At all.”  Okay, time will tell on this one.  I suppose the western Anarctic ice shelf sliding into the ocean in the next 30 years (could happen) might be an indication, but a lot of people would still say it’s a localized anomaly.
    “Who is to decide”.  Well, when there are global issues, I guess we could do nothing and see how that works out.
    Thank you for the food for thought.  I’m impressed with many of the readers of this website.  I suppose if we all keep an open mind, that’s for the best.

  • I haven’t read the reply until today — July 15.    I often don’t get time to check back and see if there are responses to my comments.   Just google the claim of 32,000 scientists and you’ll find a lot of debunking.   Science models always have uncertainty, but the climate scientists overwhelming believe the massive human change to the atmosphere is part of global warming.   Also, I never said anyone who disagrees is politically motivated, I believe on this blog in general the posters and commentators have ideologically-driven understandings of reality meaning they will look for reasons to deny global warming rather than seriously consider the evidence.  The way the ‘evidence’ presented here is so out of touch with what the scholarly and serious work outside the blogosphere suggests to me that at least in political blogs, it’s not the science that matters, but the politics.

    • YO…we were pretty much against it when Bush was mumbling about it.  We were against it when McCain said he believed it.  Sound political to you?  (course it does, that’s all you know…but I digress….)
      What you don’t get is we’re against it for what we perceive to be our own national good, which under normal circumstances, if we’re right, will benefit you as well.
      We’re asking you what benefit gained at what cost?  IF it’s fact that the world is warming, then spend the money adapting to it rather  than pissing it away trying to stop what we cannot possibly halt.    Start adapting now, don’t piss a great deal of money away to wait & see if it worked 40 years from now (when according to various global warmers, it WILL be too late – see Bonny Prince Charlie and his 8 year’s from now doom and gloom prediction).
      Adapt and survive.  Don’t be so arrogant as to presume you can change the world climate to suit your desires that ‘things stay the same’.   That’s us.
      You on the other hand, want to force us to do as you want, you’re convinced any benefit however insignificant, at any cost, is worth it, and with you it IS political.  You’re here to teach the dense righties that you know best.
      As evil, ignorant,  dense righties, we’re merely suggesting you feel free to do all you can for your own part to mitigate global warming, pay all you like to make it happen, we promise not to try and stop you. Stop trying to make us pay for YOUR perceptions of climate reality at a dramatic cost to US.
      Mr liberal, point a gun at our heads and tell us what’s good for us, totalitarian (clown).

  • I have found myself bemused by all the opinions about climate change and whilst I do not have a Phd I have ‘only’ a BA in systems studies  plus other qualifications earned by the British sub degree system of Higher National diplomas etc.This method tends to reinforce science learnt.Not good for promotion as you are classed as a  late starter.However,  it does seem that the politics now dominate the Scientific Rigour once taught at Universities and even at Higher National Diploma courses.It does seem to me that the ‘Flat Earthers’ are back in the saddle of academia and much of the Western Media, usually educated in variations of ‘Media Studies’ go along with the modern version of ‘Flat Earthism’