Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Science and the religion of global warming
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, December 08, 2005

Prepare yourself for a wave of newstories about the imminent threat of global warming and man's disasterous role as the UN’s 11th “Conference of Parties” kicks off in Montreal.

Roy Spencer writes about his experience among global warming glitterati via Tech Central Station:
As one of the very few scientists at the UN's eleventh Conference of the Parties climate meeting (COP-11), I feel like an outsider. That's because I am. The army of thousands in attendance (international delegates, NGOs, and all manner of stakeholders in the climate change issue), have little interest in knowing how certain or uncertain the science of global warming is. All these people know - or need to know - is that the "glaciers are melting," it's getting "hotter every year", and "climate change is killing people now" (all of these are direct quotes from presenters).

[…]

Safely inside the comfortably heated convention center, I marveled at this massive, UN-guided, international effort to avert global catastrophe. The effort has been gathering momentum for about fifteen years, and now has taken on a life of its own. Entire careers have been born due to this effort, I mused. There are many young people here just starting out—learning what is important in life from UN mentors and their procedures. What better way to help humanity than to tell everyone else in the world how they should live?

I wonder whether this is where all Miss America contestants end up, following through on their collective desire to make the world a better place? There are also so many Ph.D.'s here—speakers citing their credentials in order to push nostra that are little more than good intentions wrapped in a surfeit of economic ignorance (garnished with a touch of elitism). If only everyone in the world would follow the advice of these experts, our problems would obviously be solved.
Read his whole article, because it confirms much of what I’ve come to believe about the entire issue, that global warming is now bureaucratic “big business”. But that is so because it has become much more.

Licia Corbella also discusses the conference in a Calgary Sun article:
For the most part, the world's most respected climate scientists were not welcome, because, well, they aren't believers in the religion.

Most, like Dr. Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist at Carleton University, said he "couldn't be bothered" to attend and scientists like Dr. Madhav Khandekar were barred from the gabfest altogether.

Khandekar, who has a PhD in meteorology, a masters degree in statistics and won several post-doctoral fellowships, including one with the National Research Council, was a top climate scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years, as well as with the UN. Altogether, Khandekar—who has never had any affiliation with energy companies—has worked at the highest levels on climate research for 48 years and has published more than 100 highly regarded scientific papers.

On Nov. 29, the opening day of the conference, Khandekar arrived in Montreal along with Morten Paulsen with the Calgary-based Friends of Science, and was not allowed to register.
And why wasn’t Khandekar welcome? Well, because he holds a heretical view in what Corbella, in my opinion, rightly calls the “religion” of global warming.
Khandekar says scientific evidence seems to indicate that "solar variability" is one of the main causes of global warming. He also says he has studied extreme weather events of the past 150 years worldwide "and I don't see any increase in extreme weather events."
What has happened, he said, is the 24-hour cable news cycle has increased our perception that there are more extreme weather events.

"One hundred years ago they were happening all the time but we didn't get to know about them," he said.
Why is that heresy? Back to Spencer:
As I listen to the opinions and arguments expressed here, I am struck by the lack of interest in exactly how much (or should I say, how little?) the currently proposed policies are going to stave off any future warming trends. Instead, what seems to be the most important are the good intentions of the policy pushers-consequences be damned. To examine whether we can actually "get there from here" would involve some math and science skills. I suspect many of these college graduates barely made it through those courses. It is sufficient at COP-11 simply to believe that if a policy is good for business it is bad for the Earth. Since business interests are only out for themselves, business success couldn't be related to the material needs and desires of those served by businesses.
Or said another way, it’s all about greed, capitalism, and selfishness. And we certainly know where that particular arrow is pointed. The religion of global warming brooks no deviation from its belief and will not admit into it’s midst those who dare to do so.

Khandekar’s point about solar variations, while reasonable to most of us, apparently conflict with the conference’s already formed conclusions, i.e. global warming is the result of man’s activity.

But there is much to argue against this premise and for Khandekar’s. For instance, in November of 2000, the BBC reported:
Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.

[...]

"It's quite apparent from our data that global warming, of about a degree C, has been taking place for at least a hundred years," Dr Butler told BBC News Online.
And then there is sunspot activity:
Another trend scientists have picked up on appears to span several centuries. Late 17th century astronomers observed that no sunspots existed on the Sun’s surface during the time period from 1650 to 1715 AD. This lack of solar activity, which some scientists attribute to a low point in a multiple-century-long cycle, may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe. During this period, winters in Europe were much longer and colder than they are today. Modern scientists believe that since this minimum in solar energy output, there has been a slow increase in the overall sunspots and solar energy throughout each subsequent 11-year cycle.
Take a look at the following graph and note the trend in activity lately:

Note the increase in sunspot activity to date, a noticeable swing toward higher activity and thus higher temperatures.

And Khandekar’s theory isn’t a solitary one by any stretch.

For instance:
Global warming is apparently normal. Iceberg debris on the floor of the North Atlantic indicates the world has had nine global warmings, followed by nine coolings, in the past 12,000 years. All were apparently caused by a 1500-year cycle in the intensity of the sun’s radiation. The iceberg data is strongly confirmed by the solar activity record produced from carbon-14 dating of tree rings and beryllium-10 dating of Greenland ice cores.

[...]

The Bond study severely undercuts the popular theory of “global warming,” which holds that greenhouse gases from modern autos and factories are causing a dramatic artificial warming of the earth’s atmosphere. Current global temperatures are not significantly higher than those of the pre-industrial 1930s—or the year 1000. The Medieval warming occurred without autos or factories spewing CO 2, and if it was solar-driven had to be global. It was followed by the Little Ice Age which cannot be attributed to any human cause.

The Bond study indicates we will have to adapt to a gradual increase in world temperatures over the next 200 years or so, because humanity is powerless to alter the sun.
Or:
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.
Of course there are many more scientists saying precisely the same thing as any Google search will yield. But probably the most convincing evidence that we’re in a solar warming cycle comes not from the sun or the earth, but instead, Mars:
Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.

NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter has been surveying the planet for nearly a full Martian year now, and it has spotted seasonal changes like the advance and retreat of polar ice. It's also gathering data of a possible longer trend. There appears to be too much frozen water at low-latitude regions—away from the frigid poles—given the current climate of Mars. The situation is not in equilibrium, said William Feldman of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

"One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age," Feldman said. "In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached an equilibrium yet. Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter."
And, the graph of the solar sunspot activity would back the theory that the sun may be the largest culprit in the global warming we, and Mars, are experiencing. Unless someone can convince me that emissions from the Mars Rover are the culprit, I’m going to have to go with the simplest explanation - the warming trend on Mars is being caused by the sun.

That’s not to say the man’s hand may not have a part in at least some of it. But it certainly isn’t the exclusive reason we’re seeing a warming trend, and it may not even be a significant one. The truth is we just don’t know. But that won’t keep the true believers at COP 11 from telling us that indeed it is all our fault and the only one true way to salvation is to abandon our lifestyle, our warm homes and fossil fuel driven vehicles and turn our backs on our selfish and greedy ways if we want to save our planet.

Meanwhile, Mars continues to get hotter.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
With all the global warming mumbo-jumbo about, people look past the sun - namely our distance from it. I have not seen anyone mention that every year, our orbit closes slightly closer on the sun. This is proven fact, it has been known for a very long time. It is quite logical really: The sun has a great gravitational pull which keeps the planets in orbit. As the planets lose orbital momentum, they are drawn closer in towards the sun. Gee, who expects that moving closer to a giant ball of fire would make Earth warmer?

The same thing happens with any satellite orbiting any gravitational center. Simple physics explains global warming. But I suppose it is easier to point the finger at non-quantifiable and highly variant things such as emissions.
 
Written By: intelrupt
URL: http://
You fail to note that Madhav Khandekar is a consultant for Exxon.


Its really hard to find any climatologist not working for a party or an oil company who is not concerned about green-house gases. It’s a measureable fact. It may be a large factor in global warming, it may be small factor. The ice caps are melting and we just had tropical storm theta. Green house gasses will take a long time to go away. Once the levels are high they are not coming down. We don’t know all of the ramifications. If the ramifications are bad we are toast. How can you justify a war on the off chance that Saddam will get nukes and not be able to justify cutting green-house gas emissions on the chance that they will cause planetary disaster?


The disbelief in global warming, darwin, and stem cell research are all signs that we are becoming an anti-science country. God moved the planet closer to the sun. He created man in his own image. Stem cell research will incur his rath.

 
Written By: cindy
URL: http://
You fail to note that Madhav Khandekar is a consultant for Exxon.

Take it up with Corbella who I’m more prone to believe than you:
Khandekar, who has a PhD in meteorology, a masters degree in statistics and won several post-doctoral fellowships, including one with the National Research Council, was a top climate scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years, as well as with the UN. Altogether, Khandekar—who has never had any affiliation with energy companies—has worked at the highest levels on climate research for 48 years and has published more than 100 highly regarded scientific papers.
Its really hard to find any climatologist not working for a party or an oil company who is not concerned about green-house gases.

Actually it’s not. Read the cites. That’s why I provided them.

The disbelief in global warming, darwin, and stem cell research are all signs that we are becoming an anti-science country.

Good grief, Cindy, do you read these posts or, after a sentence or two, do you just wander off into lala land?

Where in the post is global warming "disbelieved?"

We have global warming. No one is disputing that. What is being pointed out is there may be a much simpler explanation than those with a vested interest in blaming man’s activity would have you believe.

Do you understand that?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Cindy, Global warming....

Sure, and when they start using real science instead of mumbo jumbo and cooking their facts to fit their desired conclusion (that we all go back to living in huts, except them of course) then it’ll be another matter.

Just answer a couple of questions for me.
What computer program has been designed that will accurately model the current
biosphere of planet earth.

Who was taking the climate (temperature, rainfall, etc) readings in outer
Mongolia, Peru, South Africa, in or around 1750?

Who was measuring the depth of the ice caps in the Antarctic and Arctic (throw Greenland in for good measure) in or around 1750?

What, no consistent historical data? and no program that can actually run
realisitc predictive models (that can demonstrate accurately they can
forcast climate based on KNOWN data, let alone hypothetical data?)

Gee, why am I skeptical....

Oh, by the way, my skeptical cynicisim may be somewhat colored by the fact that
during the 70’s I recall being told we would be, without question, out of OIL
by 2000 and that shortly thereafter my huskies and I would be freezing as the
glaciers advanced south of New York city....(Ice age! Ice age!)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And yes, I DO recognize it might be getting warmer, but I think WE (humans) get WAY too much credit for our "efforts" and Kyoto is a JOKE.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The disbelief in global warming, darwin, and stem cell research are all signs that we are becoming an anti-science country. God moved the planet closer to the sun. He created man in his own image. Stem cell research will incur his rath.
Whoa! There wouldn’t be a ’Sheehan’ after that first name would there? Because your diatribe makes about as much sense as some of the drivel that came out of her mouth.

Look Cindy, McQ pointed us to a number of sources. And from what I read, it is VERY clear that the organizers of this shin dig wanted no one around who had a different opinion than their foregone conclusion.

Now, as to your lumping in Darwin and Stem Cell research... way to throw in the vieled ’religious right’! Congrats - in one sentence your credibility is all but shot. People question darwinism. I personally am a believer but find many of the questions that come up regarding evolution intriguing. But I’m not a scientist so I wait for papers to be written so I can make my own judgements. Stem cell research? You are not going to the old ’Christoher Reeve would be alive now if not for W’ are you? If you do a search on this site I’m sure you’ll find that the discussions around stem cell research tended to center on the question ’is it the role of the federal government to take money from it’s citizens to spend on research?’.

Any finally dear... incur his WRATH... the only ’rath’ you’ll find around here is disparaging remarks about Mr. Rath.... er
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Licia Corbella is one of my favorite writers. Check out her archived articles. She rocks.
 
Written By: Canadian Conservative/Libertarian
URL: http://
I have not seen anyone mention that every year, our orbit closes slightly closer on the sun. This is proven fact
What’s your source for this? I don’t think it’s accurate.

 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Obviously, it’s those damn Martian SUV drivers.
 
Written By: ckreiz
URL: http://
The problem with dismissing the Greenhouse Effect is that it is proven fact. Emissions from a SUV converting oxygen to carbon dioxide do increase the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is better at storing heat. The question is how much it is contributing and if any is occuring due to changed solar output.

Heat can increase temperature, but can also drive storms and ocean currents and it is unknown which it will do more of if more heat is stored. No-one can measure how much radiation is hitting the earth and how much is radiating away. So we are left with measuring indicators on earth - glaciers, storm events, temperatures - all part of a very complex climate and comparing them to previous data.

Sunspot data provides the same problem, it is just a possible indicator of solar output. The Sun is possibly a simple system with a direct correlation between sunspots and output or more likely a very complicated system consisting of conditions we can only theorise about with ambigious correlations.

The best data should come from Mars which is known to be a very simple system with a weak atmosphere and no suface water. Increased solar output shall directly increase temperature of Mars. That Mars is warming is a clear indication that solar output is increasing.

Now all we need to do is find a way of measuring incoming and outgoing radiation from planets. Set one of those systems up around Earth and another around Mars.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Intelrupt: Even if JWG was wrong and you were right, and if that change was causing global warming now, presumeably it would have been over the entire span of the Earth’s existence, and we do not note a thoroughly upward trend as far back as we can get data. We do see cycles, which appear to be correlated to solar activity.

Unaha: A "fact" that has no known correlation to actual effects is of little important. (Similarly, it is also a proven fact that CO2 increases cause more plant growth which absorbs some of said CO2, and it’s also a proven fact that water vapor is far more prevalent as a "Greenhouse gas" than CO2.) The proven fact here only is that sufficient CO2 could affect climate. There is not, as far as I know, any good data to suggest it is, in fact, doing so.

Until there’s data to suggest the greenhouse effect is causing actual climate changes, and the culprit is not solar output changes (as you acknowledge), I see no problem with dismissing the greenouse effect as a cause of observed climate change, rather than potential climate change.
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
Bruce, if you want my totally unsolicted advice, I would strongly suggest you avoid staking out a position on this issue. I don’t know much about climatology and frankly neither do you, so there’s a very high probability of most people who voice an opinion on this issue embarrassing themselves right off the bat. This stuff is messy and difficult, and the waters are muddied further by people on both sides of the argument with an agenda to push. The problem here is that there are tree distinct issues that are getting conflated:

1. Is global warming occurring?
2. How much of it is actually due to human activity?
3. What are the policy implications of (1) and (2)?

(1) and (2) ought to be completely non-contraversial for everyone to discuss in a sane manner, but because they’ve been inextricably bound up with (3), people’s political inclinations are largely determining their positions on (1) and (2), and we’re faced with the rather pathetic spectacle of political ideologues and vested business interests cherry-picking "experts" and data to get the result they want.

From my position of relative ignorance, I’m willing to take it as given that the majority consensus is at least close to being correct on issues (1) and (2). But this doesn’t immediately commit us to any particular policy conclusions. On that front, Thomas Schelling has a pretty sensible take that I would highly reccommend everyone read.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
JWG:
I stand corrected. I looked into further sources and there are 2 reasons this postulate is flawed: It would take a lot greater force than slight atmospheric "scraping" for the Earth to lose much momentum. Also if it did, radiation pressure from the sun would act against the Earth, pushing it back out.
 
Written By: intelrupt
URL: http://
Bruce, if you want my totally unsolicted advice, I would strongly suggest you avoid staking out a position on this issue. I don’t know much about climatology and frankly neither do you, so there’s a very high probability of most people who voice an opinion on this issue embarrassing themselves right off the bat.

Gee Matt, that’s what you do on a blog ... you take a position, you give an opinion..

Look, as pointed out in the article, my position is that global warming is occurring, man may have a part in it, but at this point it may also be something as simple as solar cycles (somthing which has been studied and has quite a data history).

Occam’s razor Matt, Occam’s razor.

What I don’t buy is that man is solely responsible for it or that man can actually do something significant about it. That’s an opinion, based on the cites I’ve given among others.

From my position of relative ignorance, I’m willing to take it as given that the majority consensus is at least close to being correct on issues (1) and (2). But this doesn’t immediately commit us to any particular policy conclusions.

And what is that majority consensus, Matt? And how well is that consensus grounded in science?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I can tell you point blank the sunspot activity is on the increase. A real treat for radio types.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
"Gee Matt, that’s what you do on a blog ... you take a position, you give an opinion.."

When you give an opinion on a complex technical subject with which you have only the shallowest familiarity, more often than not you’re going to say something foolish. I know we’re all tempted at times to indulge in the urge to be an all-purpose pundit, but I’m just cautioning prudence.

"Occam’s razor Matt, Occam’s razor."

Occam’s razor is bull. Simple explanations are nice when we can get them, but their simplicity doesn’t make them more likely to be true.

"And what is that majority consensus, Matt? And how well is that consensus grounded in science?"

This would be a good place to start. I presume you’ll make it your evening reading.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
When you give an opinion on a complex technical subject with which you have only the shallowest familiarity, more often than not you’re going to say something foolish. I know we’re all tempted at times to indulge in the urge to be an all-purpose pundit, but I’m just cautioning prudence.

Alright ... tell me what I said which was foolish.

Occam’s razor is bull. Simple explanations are nice when we can get them, but their simplicity doesn’t make them more likely to be true.

Occam’s razor isn’t about the ’simplicity’ of an explanation, Matt. Might want to read up on that one.

I presume you’ll make it your evening reading.

Did you fully read everything I cited in the article, Matt?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
My opinion? Global warming is moot when it comes to the subject of greenhouse gas production. Why aren’t we simply talking about air quality? We know that there would be significant health improvements/quality of life improvements if we simply cleaned up our air by burning fewer fossil fuels. Seems like that is a goal with tangible results, as opposed to a doomsday prediction which we may not have any control over and can only be used to scare people into making bad decisions.

NED
 
Written By: NewEnglandDevil
URL: http://
"Alright ... tell me what I said which was foolish."

As long as you’re confining yourself to criticisms of the attitudes of people for whom this is more about pushing a policy agenda than actual concern for the truth, you’re on solid ground and I’ll stand right along with you. But when you start questioning the science behind the global warming arguments, you’d better make sure that you have a firm grasp of the actual evidence and arguments. Also, you would do well to be very careful who cite, lest you be taken for a ride.

For example, Roy Spencer has a history of talking out of his hat; he doesn’t just think global warming is a religion—he thinks evolution is too. Still feeling comfortable? Then let’s turn out attention to Licia Corbella, who in addition to having a history of being factually challenged is also a noted plagiarist. Not exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity or honest dedication to the truth here.

Now this doesn’t necessarily make anything they said in the articles you cite false, but surely you would think twice about taking their word for anything when they have a proven track record of lacking intellectual integrity, just as you would with someone like Paul Krugman. There’s no doubt in my mind that political agendas are getting their chocolate in science’s peanut butter here, but people like Spencer are part of the problem, and the fact that you cite them as credible undermines your own credibility unintentionally. This is what I mean about proceding with caution.

"Occam’s razor isn’t about the ’simplicity’ of an explanation, Matt. Might want to read up on that one."

Might want to read your own comments, Bruce:
Unless someone can convince me that emissions from the Mars Rover are the culprit, I’m going to have to go with the simplest explanation - the warming trend on Mars is being caused by the sun.
Look, as pointed out in the article, my position is that global warming is occurring, man may have a part in it, but at this point it may also be something as simple as solar cycles (somthing which has been studied and has quite a data history).

Occam’s razor Matt, Occam’s razor.
And don’t talk to me about "reading up" on Occam’s razor. Philosophy is one of the few subjects I know like the back of my hand. Occam’s razor is a doctrine about how many entities we should admit into our ontology—no more than is necessary. Which would be helpful, maybe, if we had any criterion for judging what’s "necessary" or not. As a methodological standard it’s purely aesthetic and takes a backseat to more important considerations like consistency and truth.

Did you fully read everything I cited in the article, Matt?

Yep. I don’t claim there’s unanimity, just something resembling a majority opinion. This is as fallible and subject to revision as any set of scientific conjectures, but as someone who knows little about this subject I’m willing to assume the conventional wisdom is at least close to being correct for the sake of arguments about policy analysis. It may be wrong later, but it’s the safer bet. (Yes they laughed at Fulton and they laughed at Edison, but they also laughed at a thousand cranks while they were at it.)
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
As long as you’re confining yourself to criticisms of the attitudes of people for whom this is more about pushing a policy agenda than actual concern for the truth, you’re on solid ground and I’ll stand right along with you.

Just as a future note, Matt ... I don’t render my opinions on subjects relative to whether you’ll stand with me or not. In the big scheme of things where you stand is irrelevant.

For example, Roy Spencer has a history of talking out of his hat;

Well then, take him on.

Not exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity or honest dedication to the truth here.

Then you can refute her points as well, can’t you?

Now this doesn’t necessarily make anything they said in the articles you cite false, but surely you would think twice about taking their word for anything when they have a proven track record of lacking intellectual integrity, just as you would with someone like Paul Krugman.

We’re dealing in arguments here Matt. They’re either valid or they’re not. I happen to think they make valid arguments in terms of how the global warming movement has evolved.

Now this doesn’t necessarily make anything they said in the articles you cite false,


No kidding, but you seem to want to have it both ways..."they talk out of their hat" or "not a paragon of journalistic integrity" but that doesn’t "necessarily make anything they said in the articles you cite false"?

Really? Then why bring their "ethics" up? Deal with the facts cited.

And don’t talk to me about "reading up" on Occam’s razor.

Fine. But then don’t presume to lecture me on what I should or shouldn’t have as an opinion.

Deal?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Sigivald: Simply put the Suns (varying) output is radiating energy to earth which stores the energy (with varying capacity) and then radiates it out to space. The existing Greenhouse Effect occuring on Earth (CO2, H2O, CH4 and all) is increasing the surface temperature by about 33 kelvin. CO2 is much better at storing heat than O2. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere by replacing O2, so there will be an increase in heat storage capacity.

Dismissing anything because we do not know how much affect its increase will have is a bad judgement call. We can see the warming effect solar output increase is having on Mars. Because Earth is better at storing energy than Mars the effect of solar radiation increasing is greater here and at the same time we are increasing the storage capacity by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This means that as the solar output increases and CO2 increases the heat stored on Earth will increase faster all the time.

Plus we have water vapour that is the main greenhouse gas and is dependent on temperature for its prevalence in the atmosphere, but also forms clouds to reflect radiation - just to complicate things.

As to Matts rhetoricals.
1. Yes.
2. We don’t know.
3. We’ll decide as soon as 2 is answered.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
"Just as a future note, Matt ... I don’t render my opinions on subjects relative to whether you’ll stand with me or not. In the big scheme of things where you stand is irrelevant."

Obviously. I was just trying to establish the points on which we agree.

"We’re dealing in arguments here Matt. They’re either valid or they’re not. I happen to think they make valid arguments in terms of how the global warming movement has evolved."

Yes, arguments stand or fall on their own merits regardless of who makes them. But the reason I bring their ethics up is that some of the stuff in their articles is just stuff they’re reporting and expecting us to take their word on. They may well be being totally honest here, but how are we to know when they have a proven track record of dishonesty?

I’m just a mildly interested observer here who’s feeling annoyed that science is being abused in a game of poltical football, and I see people like Spencer as part of the problem. I think they should be shunned on principle, but YMMV.

"Fine. But then don’t presume to lecture me on what I should or shouldn’t have an opinion."

I’m just suggesting that one should step cautiously when wading through a murky swamp like this. You are, of course, perfectly welcome to disregard my advice.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
//Then let’s turn out attention to Licia Corbella, who in addition to having a history of being factually challenged is also a noted plagiarist.//————-


Every one of Matt’s links offered no proof whatwoever of his claims that Corbella "plagiarises" except for the Kelly article where one sentence is similar. If Chris Selley’s Tart Cider ever tried to accuse Corbella of plagiarism, he’d be laughed right out of court.

But what do you expect from a blog that links to Canadian moonbats like Robert McLelland’s MyBlahg, Antonia Zerbisias’ blog, and Pogge...

I always check out "proof" of claims by the ultra-left; their deceit is well-known.

 
Written By: Canadian Conservative/Libertarian
URL: http://
Did you actually Read The Fucking Links? There’s four instances of paragraphs that are almost exactly identical to ones written by other authors. And the fact that you call Chris Selley (or is it me?) "ultra-left" says more about you than him.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/weblog/

I would highly reccommend everyone read this, myself. Among other things, he states...

And I continue to say we are spending far too little on gathering data and understanding the climate, perhaps about enough on computer modeling until there is more data to input, and in general just not enough on reducing the uncertainties in our predictions of future climates; and that until we have a better understanding of whether we are headed for warming or a New Ice Age, it is silly to spend large sums trying to Do Something Now.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Really? Then why bring their "ethics" up? Deal with the facts cited.
Well, in fairness, you initially brought up the topic of ethics, rather than arguments, by suggesting that "global warming is now bureaucratic “big business”" and citing a person who claimed scientists were acting on "good intentions" rather than hard science.

That didn’t exactly address the arguments made by those scientists.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
//Did you actually Read The Fucking Links? There’s four instances of paragraphs that are almost exactly identical to ones written by other authors. And the fact that you call Chris Selley (or is it me?) "ultra-left" says more about you than him.//

Did you even fucking READ what I wrote? Your links proved nothing. The "proof" your source offered was nowhere to be seen. All the links went nowhere, except for the Kelly article, where one sentence buried in the middle of the article is similar.

The fact that you don’t consider Robert McLelland’s MyBlahg, Antonia Zerbisias’ blog, and Pogge ultra-left tells me all I need to know about you. All 3 refer to themselves as "progressives" and MyBlahg and Zerbisias are well known in Canada as far-leftists. When the Bush-hating Walmart hating Pogge is the most reasonable of the three...

Robert McLelland is probably considered the biggest troll in Canada by rightwing bloggers, and he is probably the socialist NDP’s biggest fan. Zerbisias is considered a whacko. Just because she writes for the Toronto Star doesn’t mean she has any credibility; Linda McQuaig also writes for the Toronto Star!

The Toronto Star is considered Canada’s newsprint answer to our state-run, taxpayer-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which had links (at their cbcunlocked website when they were on strike) to Michael Moore, Ted Rall, Commondreams.org, and gave the "Gold Star of the Day" to Kanye West for "telling it like it is; George Bush hates black people"!

America’s definition of liberal left newspapers and TV news is far different than Canada’s. Our media is very leftist up here.



 
Written By: Canadian Conservative/Libertarian
URL: http://
Oh for the love of Pete, the links all work fine. Anyone’s free to click and read them for themselves. And if you didn’t have microscopes for eyes, you might notice that Selley’s blogroll includes almost as many right-leaning blogs as left-leaning ones. And furthermore if you actually were to read him, you’d know that politically he’s centrist. Here’s a quarter, buy yourself a clue.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
Unaha, you wrote something to the effect the Greenhouse Effect is making the Earth 33 degrees Kelvin warmer than it would other wise be—that’s 56 some degrees Farhenheit. If human generated greenhouse gasses were responsible for that, then the planet would never have been warm enough for us to evolve in the first place. I suspect you’ve misplaced a decimal at least.

And yes, the Earth is moving closer to the Sun as the motion of tides drags on the crust and disspates energy as heat. For a like reason, the Moon and Earth are moving closer to one another. This effect is much smaller than it’s primary effect, which is to slow the planet’s speed of rotation about it’s axis. This effect has already entirely stopped the rotation of the Moon relative to the Earth.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Matt has to be one of the most dishonest people I have run across yet. He claims that Selley’s links work fine, but anyone can see—by clicking them—that they lead to nothing that proves his claims of "plagiarism" (with the exception of the Kelly article—where one sentence buried in the middle of the article is similar to what Corbella wrote.

Again, where in the hell is the proof?

The fact that Matt denies this and gives credibility to Selley (whose blogroll includes loony leftists like MyBlahg, Antonia Zerbisias, and Pogge) tells me that Matt is about 3 fries short of a McHappy Meal.
 
Written By: Canadian Conservative/Libertarian
URL: http://
Oh jeez. Why was I wasting my time arguing and proving Matt wrong? I just clicked on his link and saw his picture; he’s a teenager.
 
Written By: Canadian Conservative/Libertarian
URL: http://
I’m 20. And I don’t know what’s wrong with your browser but the links all work fine for me. All it takes is a Google search. You tell me who’s missing a few marbles.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider