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

 
More AGW deniers - warming "natural"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, December 10, 2007

A new report has said that based on research, the warming trend the world is now undergoing is ... natural.
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
For those who want to shout BS, take it up with their peers who reviewed the study:
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The primary findings?
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere.In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.”
One of the things we "deniers" have argued for quite some time is that a) we reject a sole source problem for global warming (i.e. CO2) and b) models developed for these sorts of prediction are too crude to accurately model such a complex systems. There's plenty in the press release to argue about, but the bottom line is these scientists have published a peer reviewed paper which says that the warming we're undergoing is natural.

They conclude:
Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
Not that anyone will pay attention to this because at the same time in Olso:
"Without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself," Gore said in his speech. "It is time to make peace with the planet.

"The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed," Gore said at Oslo's City Hall to the applause of about 1,000 guests, including Norway's King Harald and Queen Sonja.

"The earth has a fever. And the fever is rising," he said, adding the world every day pumps out 70 million tons of global-warming pollution — mainly carbon dioxide.

Instead of the "nuclear winter" scientists warned of a few decades ago, the planet now faces a "carbon summer," he said.
"Waging war with the planet". "Carbon summer".

My goodness.

Politically, which one of these things do you think will win out?

If you don't know, see Mr. Kerry and the Democrats.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
No! No! We must do something!
We’re not sure what, but something!
Because we can’t just sit back and do nothing!
I mean, wouldn’t you rather take that chance that whatever something we do will be better than doing nothing?!!!!

And it would be good to spend money on this something!
It would be good to spend American taxpayer dollars, and American consumer dollars on this something that we’re going to do!
Then we can tell ourselves that we’re doing something, and feel all warm and fuzzy and good about ourselves because we’re doing something!!!!
And probably, hopefully, the only people affected by any changes and costs will be Republicans and rich people, and Americans who don’t think like we do!

Hurrah! Hurrah! for us!
We’re taking action!

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
lmao

Looker, when did you start reading the minds of the left?

And how long after did you develope a drinking problem to try and drown out the stupid?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
No! No! We must do something!
No, looker, YOU must do something. What’s this "we" sh*t? Don’t you know the elitist mantra yet?

"Good for thee, not for me."

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Goracle to cut back on his profligate polluting. He’s buying carbon credits, see?

Speaking of which, I am pleased to announce that with the opening of my new restaurant, I have increased my carbon footprint nearly twenty-fold.

MMMMWWWWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Instead of the "nuclear winter" scientists warned of a few decades ago, the planet now faces a "carbon summer," he said
Instead of the "overpopulation" bomb scientists warned of a few decades ago, the planet now faces a "carbon summer," he said
Instead of the "hole in the ozone" scientists warned of a few decades ago, the planet now faces a "carbon summer," he said
Instead of the "impending ice age" scientists warned of a few decades ago, the planet now faces a "carbon summer," he said
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
BTW, I can assume that Gore flew on a commercial flight to get to his award, right? I mean, sitting with the proles on a 747 for a few hours is a small price to pay for Gaia!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Jeff! "We’re" only in charge of seeing it gets done!
I didn’t mean we, me and people who think like me, were actually going to do it, let alone actually pay for it! Ho ho ho, no! We know our place!

We’re just here to see that the government gets something started, and that people like you and McQ and Scott J and Joe and Shark and rich people, and Republicans, and people who don’t think like us, pay for it!

There will be appropriate tax exemptions for people like me!
But don’t worry, we won’t abandon you to global warming!
No no!
We’ll be there through thick and thin, warm and hot, watching over you all to make sure something gets done!
Because it’s just too risky to let the climate take care of itself as it has done for millions of years, especially when we can take this once in centuries opportunity to force help people start living the right way, the proper way, the way we tell them to live!

Gee whiz but it’ll be terrific, won’t it?!!!!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
BTW, I can assume that Gore flew on a commercial flight to get to his award, right? I mean, sitting with the proles on a 747 for a few hours is a small price to pay for Gaia!
Actually he did. And he took public transportation to his hotel.

Of course that makes up for everything he’s done in past ...
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
BTW, I can assume that Gore flew on a commercial flight to get to his award, right? I mean, sitting with the proles on a 747 for a few hours is a small price to pay for Gaia!
Actually he did. And he took public transportation to his hotel.

Of course that makes up for everything he’s done in past ...
No, it doesn’t, but I will give him credit for at least putting up a good showfront.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And he took public transportation to his hotel.
Yes, he did. But apparently his luggage was chauffered by a Mercedes van.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Frankly, I have always found the the whole human-caused thing to be more than a little narcissistic. It smacks of man as the center of the universe. A view that more than one atheist or humanist would love, but not really very scientific.

The bottom line may quite possibly be that you can’t fix it. That philosopher Bruce Springsteen once said that you have to learn to live with what you can’t change, so .. live with it.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
But it was a fuel efficient van, carting all the luggage, so, no fear.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So, Al, what part of "wrong" is irresolute ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Gore told CNN Monday that he hadn’t "ruled out getting back into the political process at some point" — and that if he did return to political life, it would be to take another shot at the White House.

Isn’t that the definition of insanity ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Isn’t that the definition of insanity ?

Not necessarily. Normally, I’d rate any loser of a presidential race as tagged with the "loser" label for life. Certainly John Kerry will never get another shot. But Gore did win the popular vote, and he has a legion of fans telling him the election was stolen from him and that they would devote their lives to getting him his just desserts if he ran again.

I don’t think he could win against any decent GOP candidate, but then I couldn’t understand why someone with the manners of a user-car salesman and the morals of a snapping turtle managed to win in 1992 and 1996. I think Gore is crazy as a June bug with his global warming obsession, but at least he can put together complete English sentences and pronounce all the words in them, unlike the man he lost to. So I do believe that Gore’s chances of winning a general election would be better than such Tupperware candidates as John Edwards.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Well now, it appears that the supplicants at the alter of AGW may be wrong...
Oh, what’s this, looks like they may be manipulating the data as well.

But they have consensus.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Frankly, I have always found the the whole human-caused thing to be more than a little narcissistic. It smacks of man as the center of the universe. A view that more than one atheist or humanist would love, but not really very scientific.
You plucked this right out of my head. Not to mention that the "fixes" for AGW all come out of the liberal playbook. How... convenient.
And is that Lord Monckton on the other end of that link? Bless his heart for going through the motions as Gore’s coattail in Bali. Just for fun, I googled that brilliant op-ed you linked and, surprise, surprise, the Jakarta Post is the only major outlet printing it. Instead, we’ll continue to hear about the scientific "consensus". How... disgraceful.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
It smacks of man as the center of the universe. A view that more than one atheist or humanist would love, but not really very scientific.
One of the reasons I stopped calling myself an atheist was that Atheists give us such a bad name. I am that the center of my universe. But via science, I know that both the known and unknown universe can kick my ass in a nanosecond.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Of course, McQ only cites those studies and scientists whose findings match his particular bias, and ignores all the rest. That’s because for McQ it’s politics, not science — it’s a seeking out of opinions and research that call into question the general consensus (and in fact he’s part of a kind of denier industry Newsweek did a cover story on last year). Luckily, the entire political spectrum is moving away from the denier viewpoint, even among GOP candidates and certainly world wide (look at the last Austrialian election). So despite their efforts, the denier cottage industry seems to be hitting a rough patch.

Alas, the hilarious thing to me is that because I take the science seriously I get ridiculed by the denier crowd even though I essentially agree with him on policy: namely, that government regulation is not a way to solve this. It’s not enough to even generally agree on policy, I have to adhere to the dogma of the church of global warming denial that it is absurd to believe any of the science except those minority studies that disagree that humans are part of the cause. Global warming denial is, in essence, a religion.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Lots of personalized comments from Erb, but no substansive response countering the information cited.
 
Written By: anonymous
URL: http://
is this a real libertarian blog or just the republican mouth piece. seems more and more like the latter.
 
Written By: SLNTAX
URL: http://
Golly, SLNTAX, you’re right, we’re all fakers here. Now that you’ve outed us, you can move along to the next blog that isn’t sufficiently libertarian and expose them too.
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
...but no substansive response countering the information cited.
That is because Scott is projecting - it is politics not science.

I think I fall fairly closely with Bruce in that I see the research, and if conducted properly, do not dispute the results. What I object to is the baseless but politically motivated extrapolation so endemic in the AGW community. The modeling employed to prove global warming is inevitable is sacrosanct, yet this same modeling can’t even reproduce the weather from two weeks ago. Ooh, but we should trust it. Interesting that while we are merely skeptics, the AGW devotees label us as deniers... apostates even, yet it is they that summarily reject any study that does not support their apocalyptic prognostications.

So Scott, I toss my BA-history placard on the wall as an interesting side note... the BS-eng and subsequent PE mean a he*l of alot more. Yeah, I believe your primarily interested in science - political science - for all I’ve read. I’ve noted an interesting trend amongst AGW supplicants, you included. They all think left leaning governments are better suited to... mitigate problems, mitigate perceived problems, and mitigate problems that may not be, but ’we better mitigate them least they become problems.’

Botom line Scott, even though I do live the carbon reduced lifestyle promoted, but not adhered to, by all those AGW clergy, I remain skeptical. Until I see overwhelming scientific data, or the AGW clergy drastically changing their lifestyle, I will remain a skeptic, and oppose the draconian ’remedies’ proposed by the "priests."
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, "The science is settled", remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions.
because I take the science seriously I get ridiculed by the denier crowd even though I essentially agree with him on policy: namely, that government regulation is not a way to solve this. It’s not enough to even generally agree on policy, I have to adhere to the dogma of the church of global warming denial that it is absurd to believe any of the science except those minority studies that disagree that humans are part of the cause. Global warming denial is, in essence, a religion.
Not enough it might get warmer naturally, we’re causing it.

Good heavens!
The science (snicker snicker snicker) is settled!
It must be, look at some of the solutions we’re being offered.
perhaps if we
Re-engineered cows to fart like kangaroos,
Lit one less candle on menorahs,
Bought car insurance from E-surance,
Purchased carbon offsets,
Drank less beer in Canada.

Pay no attention to failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions.
We must do something!
Amen!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I have to adhere to the dogma of the church of global warming denial
McQ only cites those studies and scientists whose findings match his particular bias, and ignores all the rest
Global warming denial is, in essence, a religion.
This is delicious. Turn the tables on the deniers by using their same arguments. Standard fare. Dude, if you don’t think AGWs have politicized their science regarding this, you’re either completely intellectually dishonest or in willful denial. Lord Monckton was part of the IPCC group that put together that report. Why are his views (as well as others from the IPCC) ignored by the press? They don’t fit the narrative, do they? And don’t get me started on Newsweek’s biased coverage, that was a blatant hit piece by Clift and co. who’ve a vested interest in painting Gore in the best possible light as their own personal savior who they pray to, make penance to, and otherwise kiss *ss. Religion, indeed.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
Now that you’ve outed us...
My God... this is a conservative blog? And all along I thought it was an atheist forum.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Of course, McQ only cites those studies and scientists whose findings match his particular bias, and ignores all the rest. That’s because for McQ it’s politics, not science — it’s a seeking out of opinions and research that call into question the general consensus (and in fact he’s part of a kind of denier industry Newsweek did a cover story on last year). Luckily, the entire political spectrum is moving away from the denier viewpoint, even among GOP candidates and certainly world wide (look at the last Austrialian election). So despite their efforts, the denier cottage industry seems to be hitting a rough patch.

Alas, the hilarious thing to me is that because I take the science seriously I get ridiculed by the denier crowd even though I essentially agree with him on policy: namely, that government regulation is not a way to solve this. It’s not enough to even generally agree on policy, I have to adhere to the dogma of the church of global warming denial that it is absurd to believe any of the science except those minority studies that disagree that humans are part of the cause. Global warming denial is, in essence, a religion.
I’m pretty sure that if I printed that comment, and then twisted the paper and squeezed, condescension would start dripping out of it onto the floor.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
is this a real libertarian blog or just the republican mouth piece. seems more and more like the latter.
So, like what’s the deal, SLNTAX. Are ’real libertarins’ AGW "truffers" or something?

"Science says it, I believe it and than ends it"?

Skepticism - the lost art.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I tend to think I take the science seriously and that’s why I *am* a denier.

I mean, I get into a discussion with someone about the issue who presents himself as informed and I say something about global warming with an "A", and I get, "What does the "A" stand for?" And I think, how can someone who is informed not be familiar with contrary arguments?

And when it happens more than once I have to think that it’s because Global Warming doesn’t permit contrary arguments.

This, in itself, is anti-science.

I think that for a long time people with a tendency to "jump on the wagon" ran with the AGW mime (mime?) and that it wasn’t until a certain critical mass was reached fairly recently that people with a tendency to "wait and see" even looked at the issue.

Now early adapters aren’t necessarily wrong. They could have been right. But late arrivals have every right to expect a case to be made rather than just told to shut up and accept the consensus. I don’t think so. Don’t just tell me the science is there, SHOW ME.

And NO I’m not going to watch Gore’s movie. It is not science and is full of errors and the fact that it’s persuasive to many just means that they are persuaded by lies. I have enough science to understand how atmosphere heated by greenhouse processes should look. Explain why predictions are wrong.

The increasing anti-warming, oh, forces I suppose, are people who started looking at this when it seemed that something, probably really bad somethings economically, were going to be done that would affect you and me.

"Better safe than sorry", an argument that I’ve also heard is not the least bit true when "safe" means potentially destroying economies (that *that* will help the environment!). The lives of real people are at stake and the Warmers can by-golly do a decent and scientific job of *proving* that they have the first clue what they’re talking about.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Oh, and I should say, Scott, that the day Bush bought into it (politically at least) and "even among GOP candidates" isn’t a shift *away* from deniers, it’s the tipping point of getting the attention of people who were just letting it slide before.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Peggy Lee used to sing:
Sun lights up the day time
Moon lights up the night
I light up when you call my name
’cause I know you’re gonna treat me right
You give me fever (you give me fever) when you kiss me
Fever when you hold me tight (you give me fever)
Fever ... in the mornin’
Fever all through the night (WOW!!)

Everybody’s got the fever
That is somethin’ you all know
Fever isn’t such a new thing
Fever started long time ago
Sounds kinda like AlGore took a page from her songbook. Too bad the thermometer is not registering quite what he thinks, as the cited article shows.
 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
* This post powered by The Oil Industry: You’re Soaking In The Denial!
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Oliver Willis,

Tell me what’s Gore’s business? Oh, right, selling carbon offsets.

Sorry, but that means he’s just as tainted as the oil industry experts, since he too has a conflict of interest.

Sorry but this stuff works both ways, you know.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
and worse than that, the oil industry really can simply pass on the cost of any carbon tax, etc. Meanwhile, if no global warming, poof - no offset business at all. Gore’s incentive is actually worse than the oil firms.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Dude, if you don’t think AGWs have politicized their science regarding this, you’re either completely intellectually dishonest or in willful denial.
I’ll take both for $1000, Alex. Pity the poor students!
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
I still find the arguments that humans are likely a major cause to be very persausive, and I have followed the science — not just cherry picking those I happen to agree with. And, of course, the strength of science is that it never is completely settled — by definition, science is always open to new evidence and interpretations.

It appears to me that the deniers are driven by a desire to have their policy on the cheap: they don’t want regulation, but rather than argue that regulation is not a good idea even if the problem is real, denying the problem is easier.

The danger in that position: once people become convinced that the deniers are wrong, there is no alternative to regulation. The anti-regulation argument will have been completely a "there is no problem" argument. Thus, if there is a problem, then regulation will be seen as the proper approach. The debate is posed as: two options — there is a problem and thus we should regulate heavily, or there isn’t a problem so no regulation is necessary. My position is actually stronger in that I believe there is a problem, but still see government regulation as a misguided response.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I actually think Scott has a point about how we approach this debate (and the point goes both ways, and applies even more forcefully to those pushing the theory of AGW.) I am in the middle on this, I neither think it is settled science, nor that it is a fraud. I do think the scientists behind AGW have politicized this, distorted the science to make the case look stronger, and allowed the science to be used by dogmatic propagandists such as Gore to scare people about extremely unlikely scenarios. In fact, his depiction of the science is more out of the mainstream than McQ’s. Finally those behind the AGW propaganda machine have bad policy ideas to boot.

Scott is right, that those of us suspicious of those policy ideas need to be more reasonable than the AGW crowd in our rhetoric, though McQ isn’t an example of being irresponsible about it, so Erb’s point is true generally, though not here.

That being said Scott, these are not marginal scientists, but men who have been in the forefront of science on climate change, especially Christy. Their arguments are not outweighed by the reams that came before this paper, that isn’t how it works. Most of that science is fleshing out of details of our climate. It does not in itself prove anything. The people who are doing the research believe in AGW, but their science just tells us what is happening, it doesn’t prove the theory. For example, studies on glacier melt can show that glaciers are melting, and despite scientists claims that it proves AGW, it doesn’t even prove the earth is warming, and the papers rarely make such claims, though the scientists themselves, or others, often do.

This research however is the core of the science (though it may have flaws, we’ll see) which is the process of testing the hypothesis. They devised methods of testing it, and it came up short in their estimation. That is pretty powerful stuff, and few papers have really attempted to do that. So talking as if this is just a matter of a few cranks is pretty anti scientific. It isn’t a vote. Either the theory as presented is falsified, or it isn’t.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
not just cherry picking those I happen to agree with.
Just because you say that does not make it true. You are as guilty as what you claim McQ is of cherry picking quotes to back up your positions. Why else would you quote and/or support hacks like Juan Cole and Sanchez. But anyone else throws a quote at you and that person is "cherry picking" to support his obvious bias.
I still find the arguments that humans are likely a major cause to be very persausive, and I have followed the science
I will just ask one question? How can you believe the Global Warming predictions of the state of the climate in the next century when, using their very same tools, they can’t tell you with any degree of certainty whether it is going to rain next Monday. And don’t even start with "there is a lot of difference between weather and climatology" argument. That is cr*p!

Next, I have a problem with these tools they are using. In my business (I am an Environmental Analyst and Project Manager) I have similar tools. They are models that are used for various simulations. Air quality models for projections of the effect on ambient air quality conditions, Noise models which do the same thing for noise and its propigation, and so on. There are even models for effects on the Visual Quality of an area. The important factor for each of these models is its certification. How do you certify the validity of a model? You compare the predictions made by the model to actual measurements. Air quality models have been certified, as have Noise models that we use and the like. If they are not certified, they could not survive a legal challenge to the analysis. Show me where they have been able to certify the climate models used. How can you do that? We don’t know what it will be like 100 years from now. But we do have records which show what we have had in the past. As an example: Plug in our own data for the years 1900 - 1950 and let the models predict the year 2000. They have yet to accomplish that simple act with any model currently being used to postulate global warming.

By the way, I believe the Earth is warming. Why? Becasue this planet has been a whole lot hotter and whole lot colder in its history long before man ever made the scene. And the rate of change has been matched and even exceeded in these pre-man days. I don’t believe that you can lay it all on the feet of mankind. Mars has had its Ice caps melt away in recent years - man made global warming going on up there?

My major problem are those, like yourself, who claim the science is "settled"! This report tends to support the fact that it is not. And before anyone should project a fix to a problem, I would like that problem and it’s causation to be properly determined and some indication the fix will actually work. Even the proponents of AGW say their "fixes" will only limit the increase. It’s one thing to fix a wiper blade when your windshield won’t get clean but altogether another problem when it is tar on the road that is causing the problem - fixing the wiper blade does nothing but waste your money, and smear the windshield even worse.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Prof - perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with a couple of the guys who’s temperature data was used in the past to prove humans were forcing.

They had an interesting report, which you can find here.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf

What they maintain however is that it’s probably not us that’s causing the bulk of the problem and more to the point it’s counter productive to start re-acting.
Read the whole report, not just the parts you’ll like, go to the Q&A period they have at the end of the report, there are too many examples to cite reasonably here and I don’t want to omit important context.

The long and the short appears to be they don’t agree with human forcing as a major component in climate warming.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists. "UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.
Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. "We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming."
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.
"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. "All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said. "It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
Now where did that consensus go? Why is this science not correct? Are all these people oil industry flacks, Oliver? Does that make you a socialist industry flack, Oliver? I think I just coined "socialist industry" or "socialist industrial complex". Feel free to use it.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
* This post powered by The Oil Industry: You’re Soaking In The Denial!
As opposed to wallowing in the sheeple-dip.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"Lots of personalized comments from Erb"

Yeah, I guess he has gotten over his irrational fear of ad hominem. I think he is jealous of McQ. This site probably gets more hits in a week than his site has in total. And even with all the comments, I’ll bet this site uses less memory.

*********************************
"but rather than argue that regulation is not a good idea even if the problem is real"

Right. Nobody here has ever said that government regulation is not a good idea or a good solution to problems or that the market provides better solutions. Truly amazing.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
For example, studies on glacier melt can show that glaciers are melting, and despite scientists claims that it proves AGW, it doesn’t even prove the earth is warming...
Extrapolating generalizations from limited data is a significant problem within the AGW crowd. Perhaps I’ve missed it, but I’ve yet to see anyone explain how the largest Antartic ice cap in documented history is consistant with global warrming.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I will just ask one question? How can you believe the Global Warming predictions of the state of the climate in the next century when, using their very same tools, they can’t tell you with any degree of certainty whether it is going to rain next Monday.
That’s the easiest counter argument to reject. Specific predictions about the weather next week are an entirely different issue than looking at the long term impact of green house gasses, or the role of human created pollution in creating those conditions. You’re not dealing with the same kind of question.

That said, I agree with your broader point — the issue is too complex and uncertain to expect that there won’t be fundamental shifts in understanding. But that’s true with a lot of science — the theory of evolution, for instance, is considered settled science, but there have been major revisions of the theory over the years, and still many questions remain (genetic evidence has provided new insight).

My major problem are those, like yourself, who claim the science is "settled"!


?!? Did you not notice this in my post:

And, of course, the strength of science is that it never is completely settled — by definition, science is always open to new evidence and interpretations.

You also seemed to have ignored that I precisely rejected the idea of government regulation as a fix, on policy issues I’m closer to most of you than Al Gore, even though I think he’s doing an important thing raising concern about what could be the biggest problem facing the planet in coming decades.

Bottom line: there are very good reasons for thinking humans are causing at least some of global warming, and there are also good reasons for questioning that position. There are very good reasons to think that the massive amounts of pollution hurled into the atmosphere in the past centuries will harm the earth’s atmosphere (or more specifically, will harm humans — the atmosphere itself simply changes, what matters is the impact on people). Exactly how or how much is unclear. So in this uncertainty, we take into account all the science, and think about what to do.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Hey Scott, It’s the SUN stupid
 
Written By: McQ2
URL: http://
there are very good reasons for thinking humans are causing at least some of global warming, and there are also good reasons for questioning that position.
Some of global warming does not constitute the A in AGW - it means the cause is man. Not some of global warming we’re being blamed for, it’s the bulk of it. To the point where some people believe if we weren’t here, it wouldn’t happen at all, and if we’d stop doing things we do in producing CO2 we can alter it’s course.
So ’at least some’ is a cop-out.

Of course some of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is causing something to happen, good or bad, it causes something, that’s just physics in action.
Exactly how or how much is unclear. So in this uncertainty, we take into account all the science, and think about what to do.
But you’re getting the idea here...how, or how much is unclear. You just said we don’t know how it’s changing it, or how much it’s changing it, so that means the SCIENCE you’re talking about taking into account isn’t settled, so how can you use it to figure out what to do?
And in case you didn’t notice people suggesting things like a baby-tax to pay for the carbon footprint are obviously well beyond the point of examining the data, they’re starting to suggest wild-@ss solutions already.
And by virtue of distorted hysteria movies like "Inconvenient truth" the chicken little politicians won’t be far behind in implementing these insanities on the premise that they’re obligated to "do something!".
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker, I’m stating the same position I’ve stated for a long time. You can’t seem to separate: a) belief humans are involved in some (I’ve never said ’the majority’) of global warming; and b) policy preferences for things like baby taxes. One can have "a" without having "b." Again, if you define the debate as either humans cause global warming and that justifies regulation, or humans are not involved and that means no regulation, you’re basically assuring that you will get regulation if people end up being convinced that humans have significant involvement.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I’ve never said ’the majority’
Then what does the following statement mean?
It’s not enough to even generally agree on policy, I have to adhere to the dogma of the church of global warming denial that it is absurd to believe any of the science except those minority studies that disagree that humans are part of the cause. Global warming denial is, in essence, a religion.
If you don’t believe humans are causing it, why make such a statement? Then you’d be in the same camp many of us are - we concede it may be getting warmer, we don’t believe man is the primary or even secondary cause. Why make your above point if you are in that camp?

My point with regulation aside is you continue to insist that humans are the proximate cause. The science cannot prove that, and the studies cited here attest to that.

As to the regulations - as night follows day - if humans are the cause, then regulating humans can effect the cause. If you posit that humans cause it, you are essentially mandating regulation because you CAN do something about it by forcing people to act differently. There is a bill before Congress even now on this very issue.

If humans don’t cause it, pray tell what regulations would the government be able to enact to affect it and/or ameliorate it?
For example, hurricanes, what regulation does the government impose on industry and society to prevent hurricanes or lessen the strength of hurricanes?
If they proposed taxes to lessen the strength of hurricanes we might finally vote such idiots out of office.

Congress wouldn’t feel impelled to do something if there weren’t so many people like you who believed that Humans are the cause.
So, people who believe that humans are the cause of global warming, are the cause of regulation.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You can’t seem to separate: a) belief humans are involved in some (I’ve never said ’the majority’) of global warming; and b) policy preferences for things like baby taxes. One can have "a" without having "b."
The problem, sir, is we have an entrenched political class that is fast becoming global in nature that firmly disagrees with the statement you just made. Indeed, B HAS to immediately follow A, leading directly to asshattery like... said baby taxes. Has it been implemented yet? No, but do you notice the building fervor of these people who insist, nay, demand that something drastic be done NOW? And preferably, many far-reaching somethings that strangle freedoms. The consequences of folly are equally dire, would you not agree?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
humans are involved in some (I’ve never said ’the majority’) of global warming
Let’s go to the way-back machine, shall we?

Erb has said:
Face it, global warming exists and people have caused a good portion of it.
How does a normal person define "a good portion of it"?
I have to go with the scientific consensus on this; it is exceedingly strong...Global warming could be severe and is likely caused by human activity
What is the IPCC consensus? That humans cause MOST of the warming. Are you now DENYING the consensus indicated by the IPCC? Is Erb now a denier by refusing to say humans cause the majority of global warming?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The problem, sir, is we have an entrenched political class that is fast becoming global in nature that firmly disagrees with the statement you just made. Indeed, B HAS to immediately follow A, leading directly to asshattery like... said baby taxes. Has it been implemented yet? No, but do you notice the building fervor of these people who insist, nay, demand that something drastic be done NOW? And preferably, many far-reaching somethings that strangle freedoms. The consequences of folly are equally dire, would you not agree?
Fair points — which is why you must not get caught up in a situation where the main argument against such intrusion is to deny that a problem exists. That sets up a situation that if a problem does, indeed, get shown to exist (or if most simply believe it exists) then your argument is shot. Better to argue that "even if global warming is happening and if humans are a significant cause, it is still a bad idea to engage in extensive regulation." From there one can argue for a variety of creative approaches to adapt to changing circumstances and mix a modest level of rational regulations with an emphasis on voluntary and market forces. Because I think the "denier" position is a political loser — it’s already lost, even most Republicans have shifted. And if there is no alternative to argue against things like a baby tax, well...we’re screwed.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
modest level of rational regulations with an emphasis on voluntary and market forces.
I go back to my previous question - what natural forces, like halting a drought, do we regulate against today, even on a modest rational level. Note, I’m not talking about dealing with drought, which we do make regulations for, I’m talking about regulations to prevent it or reverse it.

If we can’t change the fact that the planet is heating up, as it has in the past before we came down out of the baobab trees in Africa, exactly what form of modest regulation, voluntary market force emphasis changes did you envision?

This is the place where the vast majority of the ’deniers’ here at QandO have been standing all along. It’s not that it hasn’t warmed up, it’s that we’re not causing it.
If we’re not the cause, we cannot fix the problem, no matter how reasonable and modest the regulations.
It’s a perfectly sane, practical, and thoughtful position. Yet when we espouse it, we’re labeled deniers and are accused of being in the pocket of big oil (thank you Oliver, you expert science guy you.)

We’re not screwed, we just ought not to piss away our capital and ransack our economies trying to stop warming when it can be better spent actually dealing with the problem.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

Do nothing.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
if a problem does, indeed, get shown to exist (or if most simply believe it exists) then your argument is shot.
Big fan of "tyranny of the masses", eh? I guess that’s what Gore is counting on. Your approach to this is purely political while I choose to appeal to people’s common sense. I really don’t know who’s dumber between us.
I think the "denier" position is a political loser — it’s already lost, even most Republicans have shifted.
This is not a persuasive argument as today’s Republicans are as woefully short on principle as their counterparts. The implication is that, since most people and all politicians have Kyoto fever, I should just give up the ghost and join in with the majority. I guess I’ll go down with the ship since I sincerely believe the disease is still better than the cure.
I notice you haven’t addressed the IPCC scientists not part of the "consensus". Why not? Are they the quacks of the group? How do you know? What do these people have to gain by coming out as deniers? Why is their science faulty while "consensus" science is solid and "undeniable"?
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
This is not a persuasive argument as today’s Republicans are as woefully short on principle as their counterparts. The implication is that, since most people and all politicians have Kyoto fever, I should just give up the ghost and join in with the majority.
Or make your arguments not about whether global warming is man made or not, but rather "even if it is, then these regulations are still a bad idea..."
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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