Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims

Recs

55

November 12, 2009 – Comments (91)

Howard C. Hayden
785 S. McCoy Drive
Pueblo West, CO 81007
October 27, 2009

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called “Endangerment Finding.”

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Let me next address the horror story that we are approaching (or have passed) a “tipping point.”

Anybody who has worked with amplifiers knows about tipping points. The output “goes to the rail.” Not only that, but it stays there. That’s the official worry coming from the likes of James Hansen (of NASAGISS) and Al Gore.

But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years.

Global-warming alarmists tell us that the rising CO2 concentration is (A) anthropogenic and (B) leading to global warming.

(A) CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value.

a. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

(B) The first principle of causality is that the cause has to come before the effect. The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?

Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing. But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?

• A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.

• The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough.  CO2 is plant food, pure and simple.

• CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition.

• A warmer world begets more precipitation.

• All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms.

• The melting point of ice is 0 ºC in Antarctica, just as it is everywhere else. The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is –14 ºC, and the lowest is –117 ºC. How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists? Consider the change in vocabulary that has occurred. The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data. The latter term, climate change, admits of all kinds of illogical attributions. If it warms up, that’s climate change. If it cools down, ditto. Any change whatsoever can be said by alarmists to be proof of climate change. In a way, we have been here before. Lord Kelvin “proved” that the earth could not possibly be as old as the geologists said. He “proved” it using the conservation of energy. What he didn’t know was that nuclear energy, not gravitation, provides the internal heat of the sun and the earth. Similarly, the global warming alarmists have “proved” that CO2 causes global warming.

Except when it doesn’t.

To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate. It would be a travesty if the EPA were to countenance such nonsense.

Best Regards,
Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn

91 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 12, 2009 at 10:52 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

I Was On The Global Warming Gravy Train by David Evans

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.

In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.

Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.

Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!

There were no other credible causes of global warming.

This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.

"Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit."

The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:

Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.

The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!

It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.

There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.

The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!

Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.

"Science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations."

But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?

None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.

The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.

I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.

I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes.

Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.

Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.

Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.

Report this comment
#2) On November 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Ice Core Records backing up Hayden's Point B about Cause and effect. 

 

Report this comment
#3) On November 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Contrary to what our objection assumes, there is in fact no consensus of scientists behind global-warming alarmism:

Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way. (p. 157, Horner, Red Hot Lies)

Report this comment
#4) On November 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

It gets much worse. Bjørn Lomborg affirms global warming, but he angered the alarmists because he thinks programs to reduce carbon emissions should not have a high priority. When he expressed this view in The Skeptical Environmentalist, the alarmists launched against him a campaign of contumely. A Danish Star Chamber court of inquiry, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, found him guilty of misrepresentation, even though it lacked evidence on which to base this charge. Instead, it took over and adopted as its own a bill of previously published charges.

The Committees ruled in January 2003, stating that "Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty." This opinion, such as it was, offered as evidence not analysis, but a list of those who had criticized Lomborg. (p. 122, emphasis and footnote number removed)

After more inquiry, the Danish government quashed the proceedings, and Lomborg emerged vindicated.

Report this comment
#5) On November 12, 2009 at 11:01 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor at Tulane University wrote: “Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology,"

To believe in something that has been invalidated by science, is not science. According to Ivar Giaever, Nobelist in Physics, "Global warming has become a new religion."

Report this comment
#6) On November 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Report this comment
#7) On November 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM, leohaas (35.73) wrote:

Have you turned into alstry? Commenting on your comments on your own blog?

And what exactly does this have to do with investing? Any ideas how we can take advantage of this revelation?

Report this comment
#8) On November 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Fraud of Global Warming by Floy Lilley

The former U.S. vice president, Al Gore, is now urging civil disobedience to stop coal plants. He told a New York audience recently, "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

Global Warming and Reinventing Government have been Gore’s two lifelong causes. He is using the one to accomplish the other. His fundamental assumptions and views of global warming were well documented in his film, An Inconvenient Truth. Thousands of schoolchildren have viewed it. Gore was even awarded a Nobel Peace prize for the documentary in 2007 which he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is telling that the very first Chairman of that IPCC group, John Houghton, had pronounced, "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen." True to script, Gore announced disasters and many listened.

As Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants for the sake of carbon dioxide emissions, it is time to revisit several of those assumptions and implications he made in An Inconvenient Truth. Each of the fourteen highlighted here is a snapshot of the Global Warming doomsayers’ views. The added perspective shows the fraud of the catastrophic manmade Global Warming thesis:

Carbon dioxide drives the temperature of the planet. Gore assumes that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the causal factor of warming temperatures. But, for at least 240,000 years carbon dioxide has been a lagging indicator of any warming. That means that the earth warms and, later, there is an increase in the gas carbon dioxide. Roy Spencer, Climate Research Scientist in Huntsville, Alabama, notes that "the cooling effects of weather have a stronger influence on surface temperatures than the warming influence of greenhouse gases." The major greenhouse gases are water vapor (which accounts for 70–90 percent of the effect), carbon dioxide and methane. Many scientists work on the theory that the sun is the prime driver of Earth’s climate. Earth temperature and sun activity do correlate closely. Additionally, many scientists examine the larger cosmos. Their theories reveal an interplay between the sun and cosmic rays – sub-atomic particles from exploded stars. Further, they discern long-term temperature patterns as our solar system moves through the arms of our Milky Way galaxy. Again, those events correlate more closely to Earth’s temperatures than do manmade carbon dioxide levels.

Temperatures will rise 1.54.5 degrees Celsius when CO2 levels double from a pre-industrial level of 280ppm to 560ppm. Because Earth’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide changes has been overstated, the scientifically likely temperature result of such a doubling is 1.5–2.0 degrees Celsius. Earth’s current CO2 level is 380ppm.

Catastrophic Global Warming will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet. The work of scientists supports a sea level rise of about one inch per decade. In one hundred years it should rise 10–12 inches.

Catastrophic Global Warming is forcing island nations to evacuate their populations to New Zealand because of rising sea levels. Tuvalu was the poster child for this alarm, but neither Tuvalu nor any other islanders have evacuated to New Zealand.

Catastrophic Global Warming is melting Antarctic sea ice. But, Antarctic sea ice is thickening over the gigantic continent. This thickening reduces sea level. There is ice loss on a tiny sliver of the continent stretching out far northward. That is what Gore’s movie image relies upon. The ice shelf collapse there was more likely to have been driven by ocean current fluctuations.

Catastrophic Global Warming is resulting in extreme weather. Tornadoes? The US is home to one-third of all the world’s tornadoes. But, tornadoes have not increased. Drought? There is not greater incidence of drought. Record typhoons and cyclones? No. Hurricanes? There are about ninety-five hurricanes annually and globally. But, hurricanes are neither more frequent nor more intense. In 2004 the IPCC hyped hurricane-fears without any scientific soundness. Gore’s film footage implies that hurricane Katrina was an inescapable consequence of manmade globally averaged warming. Facts do not support that alarm.

Catastrophic Global Warming has caused global temperatures to be warmer now than they have been in 1,000 years. Gore’s graph displays a long level period ending in an upward sweep like a hockey stick, displaying the appearance of runaway temperatures. A young IPCC scientist named Mann created this hockey stick graph for a 2001 report, making the real Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear. It was an enormously effective prop. Alarmists used it for their the-science-is-settled position. It made the 20th-century temperature increase look unique. But, Mann’s methodology would have conjured any random set of numbers into a hockey stick. And, the temperature increase was not unique. In 2006 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that this graph used flawed data. The IPCC has dropped the use of the Mann hockey stick from its 2007 Report. But, this piece of deliberate disinformation caused great damage to truth and science.

Catastrophic Global Warming has dried up Lake Chad. Lake Chad has been totally dry several times before humans were adding any CO2. That situation is due to over-extraction by communities.

Catastrophic Global Warming has been shrinking the snows of Kilimanjaro. By the time Ernest Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936, half of the snow was already gone. This is before man began releasing CO2 into the atmosphere to any extent by burning fuels for energy. No temperature on the mountain is above freezing. There has been no temperature change in fifty-five years. Shrinking is likely to be a circulation issue and lower precipitation, not a rising temperature issue.

Catastrophic Global Warming increases mosquito-borne malaria. Malaria was endemic to most of the developed world just fifty to one hundred years ago. We eliminated malaria in Europe and the United States while the world warmed. 600,000 people died of malaria in Siberia. Malaria sickens 300 to 500 million poor people annually, killing as many as 2.7 million each year. In sub-Saharan Africa, one in 20 children dies of malaria. The approximately forty million humans killed by malaria since 1972 have died because a politician, William Ruckelshaus, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s first head, banned the beneficial pesticide DDT.

Catastrophic Global Warming is quickly melting Arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice decreases during the summer melt season, and Arctic temperatures have risen faster than anywhere else. But, the Arctic region was warmer in the 1930’s. That could not have been caused by mankind. And, Artic sea ice has recovered from 3 million square kilometers to 14 million square kilometers. Ice-cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska has more recently been at its highest level ever recorded.

Catastrophic Global Warming is killing polar bears. Factually, that claim was based on a single sighting of four dead bears the day after an "abrupt windstorm" in an area housing one of the increasing bear populations. Global polar-bear population has increased dramatically over the past decades.

Catastrophic Global Warming is melting Greenland’s ice. Greenland has been warmer. Its ice did not melt – except around its edges. There has been no net warming – and perhaps a slight cooling – since 1937. Vikings colonized and farmed Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period. The return of colder climate drove them away.

And, lastly, for An Inconvenient Truth,

Catastrophic Global Warming has caused mass extinctions. Warming extends ranges for plant and animal species. Biodiversity is enhanced. That’s why the greatest concentration of biodiversity is in the tropics. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are shown to increase plant production, while lowering water requirements and reducing stress. Animals thrive on more abundant plant-life. Enriched CO2 has yielded an additional one-sixth production which would not have happened in its absence.

Each of these fourteen scenarios would have been an environmental bad had it happened and had it been empirically proven to have been caused by humans. The alarming events did not happen. The scary scenarios all came from computer climate models. There has been no empirical proof substantiating Gore’s claims and implications.

The hypothesis of catastrophic globally averaged warming resulting from human-caused carbon dioxide increases has failed. Failed hypotheses should be rejected.

The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to show that changes in carbon dioxide drive changes in temperature. Changes in carbon dioxide do not account well for the highly variable climate we know the Earth has had, including the Roman Warming (200 B.C. to A.D. 600), the cold Dark Ages (A.D. 440 to A.D. 900), the Medieval Warming (A.D. 900–1300 when CO2 levels were much lower than today), and the Little Ice Age (1300–1550 when there were few sunspots). The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis is a feeble theory made seemingly true by pure repetition.

The catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis fails to explain the reality of the last one hundred years. Half of our modern warming occurred from 1905–1940, when carbon dioxide levels were still quite low. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degrees Celsius. An interlude of global cooling occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, when CO2 levels were increasing. It totally fails to explain the absence of warming in the last ten years, despite a continuing rapid increase in CO2 concentration. If greenhouse action by carbon dioxide drove warming, the upper air should have warmed faster than the surface, but observations show the opposite has been the case. Although computer models say temperatures should have risen, Alabama temperatures have fallen for 115 years. Citrus crops used to be common. What could you do about this catastrophe? Buy jackets and get out of the citrus business. In other words, adapt.

It is fraud to spread alarmism of catastrophic "human-caused global warming" based upon projections generated from computer climate models which have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. It is fraud upon fraud to throw scarce resources at Global Warming when such expenditures will have inconsequential results except to impoverish us, notwithstanding that Al Gore believes it will be good for our spirituality to work together on such a common cause. There are real and achievable global causes of diseases, malnutrition, sanitation and energy that are valid projects and worthy efforts – efforts that Bjørn Lomborg endorses in his book, Cool It. No global efforts toward expensive CO2 cuts are valid or worthy. Current Climate policies are health and wealth destruction policies.

Doomsayers are claiming that climate can be adjusted in some predictable way, but it can not. It is fraud to claim that it can. As published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. has conducted studies that thwart the greenhouse effect. What that means is that "just because the greenhouse effect is real, it does not follow that an increase in intensity will necessarily lead to a significant increase in mean global air temperature, as climate alarmists are wont to claim…Hence it is not inconceivable that an increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration may result in no warming at all. Or even a cooling!...Much more research will be required before we can determine that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content even constitutes a problem, much less specify its magnitude and prescribe ameliorative measures for dealing with it."

The magnetic attraction of government funding for global-warming research, the political climate of fear-based policies seen in both climate issues and economic issues, and doom-sopping journalism works to push events into a downward spiral of exaggeration and hype. Al Gore rides this emotional wave. He has refused all debate with climate scientists. It is after all, for him, not about truth. For him truth is simply inconvenient.

Report this comment
#9) On November 12, 2009 at 11:12 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

leohaas,

It's a slow market day. Perfect for some fun global warming debunking. Let's be well-rounded, shall we?

If you're looking for a connection, the AGW's are primarly Socialists (not to be confused with Fascists like Repubs/Dems).  The stock market is the enemy of Socialism.  If they win, you lose.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On November 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

David,

I can't wait for the AGW people to jump in! I need a good laugh today.

Dare

Report this comment
#11) On November 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Option1307 (29.90) wrote:

This isn't directly related to investing, but I'll play along cause I'm way bored right now.

Have you every read Unstoppable Global Warming...It seems to be up your ally David and is an interesting read if nothing else. Also, look into Richard Lindzen if you already haven't.

To be fair, these people are obviously on one side of the spectrum just fyi.

Report this comment
#12) On November 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Option1307,

Thanks for the tip.  Looks very interesting.  

It is a boring day, isn't it?  I'm not sure why.  I'm getting no love in the options market either.  I think Mr. Market called in sick.

But I've been waiting for a day like this to vomit anti-global warming stuff on my blog page.  Perfect.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#13) On November 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

"A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better."

Wow.  That statement is laugh out loud funny.  Such oversimplification is to be expected, i suppose, in a letter that purports to dismiss a massive body of scientific work in a few sentences. 

Report this comment
#14) On November 12, 2009 at 11:34 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

radoncer,

Actually he dismissed it with one-letter: the letter "s".  What is laugh out loud funny is your reading comprehension skill.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On November 12, 2009 at 11:41 AM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

Today's blog is brought to you by the letter S!

Can you say S kids?

Dare

Report this comment
#16) On November 12, 2009 at 11:41 AM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

Careful, the AGW true believers will want to burn you at the stake, but will be afraid to actually do so because that would increase carbon-dioxide.

Report this comment
#17) On November 12, 2009 at 11:42 AM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

Even better!

Report this comment
#18) On November 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM, tfirst (36.80) wrote:

I would like to say to all you so called scientists that CO2 is heavier than the air and any CO2 released sinks to the ground and is sequestered in the earth. It doesn't make it to the upper atmosphere..Also the oceans put out more methane in one day than all the CO2 generated by man in a year. Methane is also a more volitile greenhouse gas than CO2. This whole thing is just a ruse to control more of your money. Man cannot destroy the Earth or save it. It controls us, we don't control it! Wake up people!!! The stupidity amazes me. These people have college degrees but don't even understand basic chemistry.

Torches and pitchforks....

Report this comment
#19) On November 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

chk999,

I would have laughed out loud at your comment, but I'm trying to decrease my CO2 footprint.

radoncer,

Good comeback.

Ladies and Gentleman, your first contestant in the Irrational AGW Theorist of the Day Award!

DaretothREdux ,

You just provided a tremendous service. AGW supporters need public service announcements that increase awareness.  Without them, they wouldn't know what they should be scared of.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#20) On November 12, 2009 at 11:52 AM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

chk999,

I laughed. It's my goal to double my CO2 output by the end of the year. I also plan to microwave a styrofoam cup everyday until New Year's. It's getting cold here right now and I want this New Year's Eve to be sunny and 80 degrees so I am attempting to make a large hole in the ozone layer right above my house.

Dare

Report this comment
#21) On November 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, anticitrade (99.66) wrote:

Stupid oceans..... Ruining our planet!

(jk this was actually very interesting.  Particularly since I have spent the last 3 months working on a green house gas study)

Report this comment
#22) On November 12, 2009 at 12:01 PM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

Thanks for the recognition with the cute award.  You jumped the gun a bit though since I haven't done any theorizing or said anything irrational yet.

Report this comment
#23) On November 12, 2009 at 12:19 PM, ocsurf (< 20) wrote:

It's all of us in Arizona that are complaining about global warming!!! :)  :)

Report this comment
#24) On November 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM, leohaas (35.73) wrote:

I'm confused. Am I supposed to buy AGW, or short it?

Report this comment
#25) On November 12, 2009 at 1:33 PM, jstegma (29.50) wrote:

The think the real cause of global warming was cold fusion.  That explains why it has been cooling off lately - because there hasn't been much cold fusion done since the 90's.

Report this comment
#26) On November 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

 A couple of things to keep in mind:

1) Not everyone who is concerned about climate change is a dogmatic radical.  So making that assumption is stereotyping and directing your arguments at the most alarmist extreme is pure straw man.

2) Your absolute certainty and complete dismissal of the other side of the argument should be a red flag to anyone who might take you seriously

3) The scientific community does not speak in terms of absolute certainty.  Instead they talk about probability. 

In case you want to broaden your horizons you might want to check out such sources as the scientific journals Science and Nature. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#27) On November 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

Some reading for your edification if you have the intellectual honesty to explore it:

Science. 2009 Jan 2;323(5910):116-9. Declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef. De'ath G, Lough JM, Fabricius KE. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia. g.death@aims.gov.au Comment in: Science. 2009 Jan 2;323(5910):27. Reef-building corals are under increasing physiological stress from a changing climate and ocean absorption of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. We investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals from 69 reefs of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Their skeletal records show that throughout the GBR, calcification has declined by 14.2% since 1990, predominantly because extension (linear growth) has declined by 13.3%. The data suggest that such a severe and sudden decline in calcification is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years. Calcification increases linearly with increasing large-scale sea surface temperature but responds nonlinearly to annual temperature anomalies. The causes of the decline remain unknown; however, this study suggests that increasing temperature stress and a declining saturation state of seawater aragonite may be diminishing the ability of GBR corals to deposit calcium carbonate.

 Nature. 2009 Sep 17;461(7262):385-8. Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet. Vinther BM, Buchardt SL, Clausen HB, Dahl-Jensen D, Johnsen SJ, Fisher DA, Koerner RM, Raynaud D, Lipenkov V, Andersen KK, Blunier T, Rasmussen SO, Steffensen JP, Svensson AM. Centre for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen Oe, Denmark. bo@gfy.ku.dk On entering an era of global warming, the stability of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is an important concern, especially in the light of new evidence of rapidly changing flow and melt conditions at the GIS margins. Studying the response of the GIS to past climatic change may help to advance our understanding of GIS dynamics. The previous interpretation of evidence from stable isotopes (delta(18)O) in water from GIS ice cores was that Holocene climate variability on the GIS differed spatially and that a consistent Holocene climate optimum-the unusually warm period from about 9,000 to 6,000 years ago found in many northern-latitude palaeoclimate records-did not exist. Here we extract both the Greenland Holocene temperature history and the evolution of GIS surface elevation at four GIS locations. We achieve this by comparing delta(18)O from GIS ice cores with delta(18)O from ice cores from small marginal icecaps. Contrary to the earlier interpretation of delta(18)O evidence from ice cores, our new temperature history reveals a pronounced Holocene climatic optimum in Greenland coinciding with maximum thinning near the GIS margins. Our delta(18)O-based results are corroborated by the air content of ice cores, a proxy for surface elevation. State-of-the-art ice sheet models are generally found to be underestimating the extent and changes in GIS elevation and area; our findings may help to improve the ability of models to reproduce the GIS response to Holocene climate.

And for fun: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert

Report this comment
#28) On November 12, 2009 at 1:57 PM, maxnik0215 (62.45) wrote:

great read. too bad, none of that matters. When GS decided to make money on carbon caps - nothing is gonna stop them....

Report this comment
#29) On November 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

radoncer,

None of that is in play here.  No one is questioning Science and Nature, though it's quite obvious they are not objective either - see the suppressing of information by Science in comment #3.  This is a simple post.  

If there was a consensus, then there would be one model, and it would be fairly accurate.  That is what a consensus is.  There is no consensus.  There is mass confusion.  Confusion is fine.  That's the point.  Clear up the confusion and THEN implement policy.  Don't implement policy only to be find out that we were totally wrong.

Scientists do not speak in probabilities. Scientists attempt to find laws.  Einstein did not say that gravity is probably correct, or that e=probably mc squared.  See the Fenyman video above to understand the difference.

No one should be making policy based on probabilities.  That's bad science and bad politics.  

And yes, before you ask, we should DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unitl we know for sure.  Will it be too late?  Definitely not.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On November 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

radoncer,

Coral reefs are shrinking around Australia.  Ok. What's the cause?   They speculate increasing temperatures, but temperatures have been decreasing since 1998.  At least they have the intellectual honesty to say they don't know.

Cause for Alarm on a scale of 1 to 10: -3

Greenland Ice Sheet. They admit that they start with the assumption that there is currently global warming. Start with a false premise and you'll get the result you want.  Nothing spectacularly hard about that.

They didn't like the results they got from previous "state of the art" models.  This model may work better. Fine.  If it works for the Greenland Ice Sheet, and withstands falsification tests, I'll show some interest. 

Cause for Alarm on a scale of 1 to 10: -5

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#31) On November 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

radoncer,

Coral reefs are shrinking around Australia.  Ok. What's the cause?   They speculate increasing temperatures, but temperatures have been decreasing since 1998.  At least they have the intellectual honesty to say they don't know.

Cause for Alarm on a scale of 1 to 10: -3

Greenland Ice Sheet. They admit that they start with the assumption that there is currently global warming. Start with a false premise and you'll get the result you want.  Nothing spectacularly hard about that.

They didn't like the results they got from previous "state of the art" models.  This model may work better. Fine.  If it works for the Greenland Ice Sheet, and withstands falsification tests, I'll show some interest. 

Cause for Alarm on a scale of 1 to 10: -5

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On November 12, 2009 at 2:27 PM, mreedpgh (94.29) wrote:

tfirst,

 It's not as simple as the heavier gas falling to the floor.  Two of the larger effects for the motion of gas molecules are convection (in this case, wind) and diffusion through random Brownian motion.  Even if you had a perfectly still system, like a closed beer bottle, with some air (nitrogen/oxygen) and some carbon dioxide in it, there would be a measurable difference in CO2 concentration from top to bottom, but the top would still have *some* carbon dioxide no matter how enormous the bottle was.  The higher the temperature, the more random motion (atoms bouncing off each other faster and faster), the more mixing.  Only at absolute zero, where there is no molecular motion, would all of the CO2 *tend* to be at the bottom of the bottle.

 Generally, winds provide more mixing than diffusion.  Add in the fact that there are updrafts and downdrafts, and you get a *lot* of atmospheric mixing out there.

--Mike

Report this comment
#33) On November 12, 2009 at 3:21 PM, rofgile (99.33) wrote:

whereaminow,

 

Scientists do speak in probabilities, Quantum mechanics is a good example. 

And not all laws are equally followed, example is Newtonian physics. 

 

Anyone can blog that Global Warming doesn't exist or isn't manmade.  Lets see those people conduct research, and defend their argument from peer review of a well-review journal such as Nature or Science.  Until then, it could just be some dude shooting the breeze.  Which the arguments against GW pretty much are right now. 

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#34) On November 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM, GeneralDemon (27.72) wrote:

I was kinda following this guy's thinking until the following sentence kind of shot his credibility.

"All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms."

This is totally false - and underscores why this guy's argument is opposite that of the overwhelming majority of Climate Scientists.

Storms and hurricanes are the result of the differential of local areas of kinetic energy. Hurricanes have massive amounts of kinetic energy because they are fed by the warmer oceans (water absorbs solar energy far greater than soil) and the more the earth heats up the bigger the differential between the warmer ocean and the cooler land areas will become.

This is why hurricanes move towards land - hot always moves towards cool. Hurricanes on the West coast always veer back towards Baja- they are trying to dissipate the energy where it is locally available (over the cooler land mass). They don't search out the poles - that's too far away to matter.

This guy also states somthing silly - "how can ice melt in the Antartic when the highest temp is less that freezing?" - So the satellite photos of all the shrinking ice sheets in Antartica are fake??? 

While I believe the essence of Nature is change, and one big volcano could change every model - This guy seems like a crank.

Report this comment
#35) On November 12, 2009 at 4:44 PM, anticitrade (99.66) wrote:

I believe GS is creating those doctored videos of the shrinking ice sheets in the same lab where they staged the moon landing just 40 years ago.  The smart money is betting that the high frequency trading program became self aware and is the true mastermind of all the GS tyranny...  In certain circles its understood that this program is also responsible for the spam we see on caps and Alstrys blog. 

We live in scary times....

Report this comment
#36) On November 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

Wow, an avalanche of ignorance. Let's see some of more funny claims:
- Extensive use of the Gish Gallop as if it were enough to settle matters of fact.
"Named for creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish, the Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised."
- "Scientists do not speak in probabilities."
Yeah, statistics is pseudoscience. According to your interpretation of science, quantum mechanics is pseudoscience since it speaks in term of probabilities.
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine) this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics."
- References to Einstein and Feynmann.
"The Crackpot Index
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

(...)
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
(...)"

- Extensive use of the argument from authority (a favourite of conservatives). See what Howard Hayden himself believes
"It is difficult to find critical work about Einstein's Theory of Relativity in most standard physics journals. Galilean Electrodynamics, founded by the late Petr Beckman in 1989, is a notable exception. Since Einstein's 1905 paper, Relativity has had many critics and although it is widely accepted today, there is still a minority who question the central tenets of Relativity Theory. Galilean Electrodynamics is devoted to publishing high quality scientific papers, refereed by professional scientists, that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines." Truly a crackpot

Report this comment
#37) On November 12, 2009 at 5:51 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

... continued ...
- The letter:
"The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements."
Complete ignorance of modelling and the chaotic nature of the climate system.
"Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase."
We're not in a cooling phase. GHG-induced warming doesn't mean the end of other forcings (orbital forcings, ocean oscillations, solar cycles, aerosols, etc) and it isn't a steady, linear process.
"But therein lies the proof that we are nowhere near a tipping point. The earth, it seems, has seen times when the CO2 concentration was up to 8,000 ppm, and that did not lead to a tipping point. If it did, we would not be here talking about it. In fact, seen on the long scale, the CO2 concentration in the present cycle of glacials (ca. 200 ppm) and interglacials (ca. 300-400 ppm) is lower than it has been for the last 300 million years."
* Tipping points don't mean runaway climate change (the oceans boil and the Earth becomes Venus). We can't know if we are/aren't near a tipping point that introduces strong feedbacks which generate abrupt, rapid climate change to unknown situations.
* 300 millions years ago the world was very different: mammals were starting to appear, the continents were distributed differently, the solar output was lower (compensating the excessive greenhouse effect) and there weren't 7 billions humans demanding American lifestyles.
"CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind."
The existence of natural wildfires is proof that arsonists can't exist.
"The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as water warms, and increases as water cools. The warming of the earth since the Little Ice Age has thus caused the oceans to emit CO2 into the atmosphere."
* The atmospheric CO2 has the "signature" of fossil fuel combustion. It's depleted in carbon-13 and carbon-14.
* There's an 800 years lag between the beginning in the rise of temperatures and the degassing of the oceans. The Little Ice Age ended 350 years ago.
* The natural warming which followed the end of the LIA is too small to generate the proposed degassing.
* In the recent history (1 million years) CO2 levels have never varied in this magnitude (100 ppmv) in such a short timeframe (250 years). 100 ppmv is the total variation in CO2 levels between a glacial and an interglacial epoch. We managed to do the same in two and a half centuries.
* The oceans have been acting as a net sink of CO2 even as they warm up (they should be degassing).
"The historical record shows that climate changes precede CO2 changes. How, then, can one conclude that CO2 is responsible for the current warming?"
CO2 is both a forcing and a feedback. The historical record shows CO2 acting as a feedback to orbital cycles. There's no orbital forcing now (and the long term trend is one of cooling) and the primary forcing is now the release of CO2 and other GHGs.
"But what would we have to fear if CO2 and temperature actually increased?
• A warmer world is a better world. Look at weather-related death rates in winter and in summer, and the case is overwhelming that warmer is better.
• The higher the CO2 levels, the more vibrant is the biosphere, as numerous experiments in greenhouses have shown. But a quick trip to the museum can make that case in spades. Those huge dinosaurs could not exist anywhere on the earth today because the land is not productive enough.  CO2 is plant food, pure and simple."

Yeah. Tell that to the folks who depend on snowpack and glacier melt for freshwater and irrigation. Or the pesky fact which says that a lot of plants are not CO2-limited. You know, they also need water, phosphorus, nitrogen and micro-nutrients. Or that a warming world changes the nutritional profile of a lot of staple foods and raises the levels of toxins in livestock feed.
"CO2 is not pollution by any reasonable definition."
A strawman.
"A warmer world begets more precipitation."
Correct. But where is going to rain more? Over the oceans? On flood-prone areas?
"All computer models predict a smaller temperature gradient between the poles and the equator. Necessarily, this would mean fewer and less violent storms"
But didn't you say previously that since there are lots of models none of them is reliable? Modelling is fine if it agrees with your preconceived notions and useless when it tells inconvenient things.
This is an area of ongoing research. There's no consensus position about a surge in storm activity as a result of a climate system holding more water and energy.
"The highest recorded temperature at the South Pole is –14 ºC, and the lowest is –117 ºC."
The lowest temperature ever recorded (worldwide) is -89.2 ºC in Vostok.
"How, pray, will a putative few degrees of warming melt all the ice and inundate Florida, as is claimed by the warming alarmists?"
Strawman and ignorance of calving for example. Nobody ever said that the whole cryosphere would melt; the East Antarctica ice sheet has survived in a much warmer world. But Greenland and the West Antarctica ice sheets are much more fragile. Add that to the huge inertia of the cryosphere and you get a dangerous situation.
"The term global warming has given way to the term climate change, because the former is not supported by the data."
Blatantly false. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was founded in 1988, way before any mainstream talk of global warming. On the other hand, climate change is a more complete and accurate definition because it involves precipitation, weather patterns, etc and not just the global average temperature.
"To put it fairly but bluntly, the global-warming alarmists have relied on a pathetic version of science in which computer models take precedence over data, and numerical averages of computer outputs are believed to be able to predict the future climate."
Strawman and ignorance. Observations play a much greater role than models. We have observations of outgoing radiation (confirming the energy imbalance), global surface temperatures (confirming the warming), glacier shrinking, poleward movement of wildlife, stratospheric cooling, etc. And the computer models (based on physical laws and not statistical averages) have proven to be reliable at hindcasting the 20th century and the whole Holocene and forecasting (Hansen's prediction of 1988, polar amplification, cooling following major eruptions, etc)

Report this comment
#38) On November 12, 2009 at 6:05 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

... continued ...

"Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" …"
A seriously flawed survey
"The URL and password were posted to the climatesceptics mail list, so the results were biased and included responses from people who were not climate scientists."
The consensus is as strong as ever, underpinned by:
* The consensus at the IPCC, the biggest exercise in peer-review in the history of science, consisting of hundreds of world's best climate experts.
* The statements from the national academies of science of G8 countries endorsing the findings of the IPCC.
* The statements of the world's largest and most important learned societies endorsing the work of the IPCC.
* The consensus on the peer-reviewed literature.
* The consensus of the scientific opinion.
"Bjørn Lomborg affirms global warming, but he angered the alarmists because he thinks programs to reduce carbon emissions should not have a high priority."
So Lomborg affirms global warming which contradicts your position that AGW is an hoax perpetrated by pointy-headed socialists who want to tax and enslave the world. Pure logic.
Anyway, Lomborg is not a credible source:
* He's been widely discredited.
* His argument against schemes proposed to deal with global warming are based around a false dilemma. His basic argument is that you can't both cure malaria and deal with climate change at the same time based on a fixed sum of money (why?) and that in the future (when?) technology will solve all of our problems in time without collateral effects.

Report this comment
#39) On November 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, rexlove (99.36) wrote:

I wish we had global warming. Winters are far to cold up here in the northeast.

Report this comment
#40) On November 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

rofgile,

Yes, but politicians are not implementing sweeping worldwide policies based on the probabilities of quantam physics.

Nobody here is debating GW or a rise in CO2. What is being debated is two things:

1. There is no consensus. Period. If there was, there would be one model, not twenty-something, and it would have some sence of accuracy, not zero accuracy. That is confusion, not consensus.

2. There is still no consensus on AGW, whether there is cause and effect. I.E. is there global warming because of a rise in CO2 or is there a rise in CO2 because there is global warming.

Finally, Science and Nature journals are about as Fair and Balanced as Fox News. You don't get peer reviewed if you wish to dispute AGW claims in those journals. If you want funding to conduct this research, good luck. People who want to verfiy global warming claims meet dead ends everywhere they turn. That is why there is so much suspicion. I ask you to look a little bit closer at these issues. That's all.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#41) On November 12, 2009 at 9:42 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

GeneralDemon,

Good points, but those are also not essential to Professor Hayden's main arguments. It would have been nice if he had focused solely on the two primary points of his letter and not strayed into speculation.

But the two points are completely valid.

1. If there is a consensus, why are there so many models, and why do they all suck so bad?

(Which leads to the obvious question of why policy is being implemented based on these models.)

2. What is the cause and effect relationship of CO2 and global warming? That is such a simple question that it seems absurd that no one can answer. Frankly, no one can. Even the peer reviewed work in Science can not say. If anything, evidence points to global warming causing CO2 rises, but no one will admit this, since it would dispel AGW.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#42) On November 12, 2009 at 9:45 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

lucas1985,

That's all nice, but you didn't address either point.

1. If there is confusion, not consensus, why are politicians and the EPA implementing globally life-altering policies?

2. What is the cause and effect relationship of CO2 and global warming? Which comes first?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#43) On November 12, 2009 at 10:20 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

Dave,

I find your equivocation very puzzling. Lucas has essentially debunked the mistaken views you have held regarding modeling and probabilities. Your equivocation is puzzling as well as disingeneous.

Your claim regarding Science and Nature is disputed by Lucas' link, so now we must ask are you as allergic to information contrary to your belief as those evil "AGWers" you have been excoriating? Or are you ready to concede?

I see no reason why lucas should answer your questions until you have adequately addressed his. Specifically:

1. Was it right for the editor of Science to reject a bad survey?

2. Do you concede now that scientists deal with probabilities all the time?

As of right now, your behavior is no different from climatologists who refuse to listen to skeptics. Like them, you brush aside any mistakes you have made and refuse to address any mistakes that appear in your logic and argument.

Report this comment
#44) On November 12, 2009 at 10:28 PM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

I am not sure if this is related, but I can't figure out why we are so convinced we can predict global warming when we can't even predict the local weather. 

I mean why can't we consistently predict 1,2,3,4 or 5 days of local weather?  I hear on the news that my local weather man has multiple computer models.  Why so many?  Why can't one do the job?  Anyways, he tells us that he is analyzing the data, but if there is any hint of something on the horizon like a storm it is the lead for the 10 o'clock news.  It is like clockwork all through winter.  "A big low pressure is brewing over CO and someone in the midwest could see up to a foot of snow."  Of course, I buy it hook, line and sinker and mention it to my buddies and they talk to their buddies and pretty soon everyone is talking about the big day.  Then once the big event doesn't occur the weather man is right there with the "conditions just weren't right for this area."  

I just want someone to predict 1,2,3,4 and 5 days of weather accurately.  If that can be done I will be more willing to listen to someone's idea on global warming. 

Report this comment
#45) On November 12, 2009 at 11:06 PM, RainierMan (81.21) wrote:

Having seen these anti-global warming diatribes peddled on TMF for quite some time, my primary conclusion is that the skeptics have way too much time on their hands.

Do you guys even have jobs? Who would waste this much time confirming each others views and changing exactly nobody's mind with your pages and pages....THIS.

Report this comment
#46) On November 13, 2009 at 12:00 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

FoolsGrad ,

I recommend that you go and read through the links that lucas1985 posted. They don't clarify, but only add to the confusion.

Look. Read through the comments. If you come away convinced that rising CO2 causing global warming and not the other way around, or that there are a myriad of other factors that can be in play, please explain. It's a mess.

That's the point. The science is not even close to a consensus. This isn't an anti-science viewpoint. This is a "take a deep breath" and let the science get worked out before we start altering human life.

If you don't see that as a reasonable approach, I'm sorry. It sure seems reasonable to me.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#47) On November 13, 2009 at 12:22 AM, NOTvuffett (< 20) wrote:

The science doesn't even matter.  The truth is that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will rise in the coming decades.

If there are big effects from it we will have to deal with it.

If there are not, we will have made choices that make us look like idiots.

 

Report this comment
#48) On November 13, 2009 at 1:02 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

"politicians are not implementing sweeping worldwide policies based on the probabilities of quantam physics."
Politicians implement nationwide/worldwide policies based on probabilist estimates or the results of modeling:
- Epidemiology.
- Aircraft designs.
- Nuclear weapons.
- Fishing quotas.
- Seismology/vulcanology reports.

"1. There is no consensus. Period. If there was, there would be one model, not twenty-something, and it would have some sence of accuracy, not zero accuracy. That is confusion, not consensus."
Consensus isn't the same thing as unanimity. Consensus means that the overwhelming majority of experts (climatologists, palaeoclimatologist, glaciologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, oceanographers, environmental scientists, resource economists, et) agree on a handful of basic premises, probable outcomes and type of policies.

"There is still no consensus on AGW, whether there is cause and effect. I.E. is there global warming because of a rise in CO2 or is there a rise in CO2 because there is global warming."
Oh dear, did you actually read what I wrote? The increase in CO2 concentration is a man-made thing. Atmospheric CO2 is depleted on certain carbon isotopes which give a clue about the origins of the rise in concentration. CO2 is a GHG so, ceteris paribus, it will cause a rise in the global average temperature.

"Finally, Science and Nature journals are about as Fair and Balanced as Fox News."
- Don't like Science and Nature (the two most important general science journals)? Fine. Here's a list of scientific journals in earth and atmospheric sciences. Go to your nearest library and start reading.
- Scientific publishing doesn't have to be fair and balanced. It has to be correct.

"You don't get peer reviewed if you wish to dispute AGW claims in those journals."
So, after all, it's just a plot of lefty scientists to take away our freedoms? Are there more conspiracies by lefty scholars?

"If you want funding to conduct this research, good luck."
Obviously you don't have the slightest idea about science funding and grants.

"I ask you to look a little bit closer at these issues. That's all."
What will you gain looking a bit closer at these issues if you lack the expertise to analyze claims and counter-claims? This is wishful thinking at best.

"If there is a consensus, why are there so many models, and why do they all suck so bad?"
- Climate models are far from being perfect, but they've proven to be useful
"    * models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
    * models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
    * models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
    * models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
    * models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
    * models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
    * and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct."

- There are many models because each model is different. Some have added geochemical cycles, others use different parameterizations of unresolved uncertainties (clouds, aerosols), some lack the sea ice component, etc. Despite these marked differences, all models produce surprisingly similar outputs.

"What is the cause and effect relationship of CO2 and global warming?"
- In the recent past (Pleistocene), the relationship is roughly the following:
Orbital changes (the forcing) > increase in solar irradiation on the Southern hemisphere > slight rise in the Southern temperature > oceans liberate CO2 (more temperature = less solubility) > GH effect of CO2 kicks in (feedback) > global rise of temperature > ice-albedo feedback (as ice melts, dark soil is exposed and dark soil absorbs more sunlight) > end of glacial epoch.
- In the present, the relationship is different:
Big alteration of the carbon cycle (destruction of carbon sinks, burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement production) > rise in atmospheric CO2 even as the oceans take a large chunk of those emissions > enhanced GH effect > rise in global temperature > modification of climate (more heat and water)

"life-altering policies?"
Which policies are life-altering? And you call those who accept AGW "alarmists". Give me a break.

"why we are so convinced we can predict global warming when we can't even predict the local weather."
Because weather and climate are different things. Seriously, this is high school level stuff.
"Climate and weather are really very different things and the level of predictability is comparably different.
Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time, generally around 30 years. This averaging over time removes the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is clearly quite a challenge, as your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness to, but the latter is routine and reliable.
This by no means says that it is necessarily easy to predict climate changes, but clearly seizing on the weather man's one week failure to cast doubt on a climate model's 100 year projection is an argument of ignorance."


"The science is not even close to a consensus."
Tell that to the hundreds of world foremost experts on climate science which agreed with every word printed in the IPCC's AR4.

"This is a "take a deep breath" and let the science get worked out before we start altering human life."
- Science has been working since the 19th century. The National Academy of Science (USA) published a seminal paper 30 years ago which is surprisingly accurate even today. The IPCC has made 4 reports, each with more certainty than the predecessor. Do you think that the study of climate is of recent development?
This is an argument of ignorance.
- Altering human life? Are you joking?

"If there are big effects from it we will have to deal with it."
We will deal with climate change as long as we can. There's a small but significant chance that the global economy won't survive from certain levels of climate change.

"If there are not, we will have made choices that make us look like idiots."
If we're wrong on climate change our efforts won't be wasted. We'll have halted ocean acidification, reduced urban pollution, phased out coal (the dirtiest energy source), kick-started the 21th century Industrial Revolution, managed peak oil, etc.

Report this comment
#49) On November 13, 2009 at 2:01 AM, ArgusPanoptes (26.52) wrote:

If there's one person that needs to be well-rounded in the whole discussion its Howard Hayden.

The stuff he writes about the world being better warmer is just  stupid. There's a reason lifespan is short and people are poor in tropical nations.

Right away he shows his cards by revealing that he doesn't consider the problem a problem. What's his point then? Everything we want to slow down that has to do with CO2 levels is bad for the planet in every other respect as well. It's not like we're tearing up the trees in panic. We'll just end up with more plants and trees, more fish in the sea, cleaner water and more advanced technologies. I wouldn't feel foolish for helping to make any of those things happen.

Report this comment
#50) On November 13, 2009 at 2:22 AM, djkumquat (42.98) wrote:

ha! dis twed qwacks me up!

Report this comment
#51) On November 13, 2009 at 2:37 AM, MGDG (36.49) wrote:

I used to be amused at people that believed we could heat or cool the planet to our liking. Now with Cap & Trade, I'm concerned I'll have to pay for that amusement. No more free entertainment.

Report this comment
#52) On November 13, 2009 at 3:21 AM, uclayoda87 (29.51) wrote:

Question:  Will buring all those US dollars in a Cap and Trade bill increase global warming or will the decrease in industrial production, triggered by the Cap and Trade bill, result in a net decrease in global temperature?

As humans die,  their bodies cool.  Another nice solution to global warming:  The Health Care Bill.

Report this comment
#53) On November 13, 2009 at 4:15 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

lucas1985,

You refuse to acknowledge the simplest points of Hayden's article.

There is not a single model, out of the many you cite, that predicted the cooling period of the last 11 years. How is that in any way a consensus? A consensus to be wrong perhaps, but certainly not a scientific consensus on any acceptable level. What is the probability that every model would be wrong for eleven years straight? And what is the probability that you will continue to ignore this vital piece of information?

Read the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC and tell me if they are certain that GW & CC are caused by Anthropogenic CO2 emission.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#54) On November 13, 2009 at 4:38 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

In case any should protest, let's review.

1. There isn't a consensus on modeling because:

A) There is not one model that is agreed upon.

B) There is not one model that is even passably accurate

C) There is not one model that predicted an 11 year cooling period.

2. There isn't a consensus on AGW because:

A) The cause and effect relationship of CO2 and global warming is not firmly established.

B) Even the IPCC's own reports note that the relationship is correalated not causal.

C) There is a significant number of scientists whose work is also peer reviewed that dispute this relationship or point to other possible causes of higher temperatures.

In other words, the science is not in the least bit settled.

And despite what you would like to believe, lucas1985 is not a scientist. He has done zero peer reviewed research. He is telling you what people told him, but he can not address any of the claims above. Follow the links he posted. Don't be afraid. In every one of them there is disagreement, discussion, and confusion.

There is no consensus. None of this confusion is inherently bad. It is a good thing for the scientific community, and I suspect that they will eventually figure things out eventually once scientific integrity overtakes the political impulse to "do somthing."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#55) On November 13, 2009 at 5:18 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

IPCC WG1 AR4 Report Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change <--- PDF

I can't stress enough that everyone should read this. Notice how every single conclusion is listed as likely with the word in italics. It is likely, not certain. It may even be seen as very likely and sometimes the less certain more likely than not likely.

How can anyone with a rational brain read this and determine that the science is settled?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#56) On November 13, 2009 at 8:59 AM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

Dave,

 

"

I recommend that you go and read through the links that lucas1985 posted. They don't clarify, but only add to the confusion.

Look. Read through the comments. If you come away convinced that rising CO2 causing global warming and not the other way around, or that there are a myriad of other factors that can be in play, please explain. It's a mess.

That's the point. The science is not even close to a consensus. This isn't an anti-science viewpoint. This is a "take a deep breath" and let the science get worked out before we start altering human life.

If you don't see that as a reasonable approach, I'm sorry. It sure seems reasonable to me."

 

I continue to find your equivocations puzzling and must wonder if your own convictions lies in your ability to look over evidence contrary to yours. Before we even go to the science on climate change, do you:

1. now acknowledge that you were wrong in accusing the editor of Science for rejecting the survey you mentioned?

2. that scientists deal with uncertainties and probabilities all the time?

 

As I said earlier, you have exhibited as little honesty and willingness to listen as the "AWGers" you have been excoriating. This is usually the case for the skeptics. Poorly trained in science but bigoted enough to ignore evidence that contradicts their biases.

 

Report this comment
#57) On November 13, 2009 at 9:36 AM, 08PortfolioModel (33.34) wrote:

If i fly a kite, there are many models explaining how long it will fly, depending on where i stand or who built the kite, or who flies it, etc.

Someone new to the conversation may assume then, that there is a chance the kite would fly forever.

Report this comment
#58) On November 13, 2009 at 10:05 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

FoolsGrad,

Your criticisms are false. Read the comments over again. Professor Horner made that accusation.  You can choose which side of that argument you fall on, and you have.  That's fine.  I'm not going to apologize for an accusatioin that Horner leveled, which Science claims is false.  That's for you to decide.

I never claimed that scientists don't "deal in" probablities. I said scientists, even Quantam Physicists, search for laws.  Is that really such a shocking pronouncement that you could find fault with it?

Now that I have addressed your concerns......

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#59) On November 13, 2009 at 12:02 PM, RonChapmanJr (97.20) wrote:

whereaminow - "Scientists do not speak in probabilities."

Yes, they do.

I usually read your posts and agree with them but this one is below your usual level.  I don't care at all about climate change/global warming and doubt it is man-made, but in this specific thread you are avoiding the points others have made in a manner that would get you a prime seat at a table with the people you normally mock.

ron

Report this comment
#60) On November 13, 2009 at 12:22 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

 I do care about the climate change discussion because it has many possible impacts on my economic future. As an investor and living in the USA the legislation to limit CO2 production has significant impacts upon the profitability of one sector or another in the economy and one firm or another within the sector.

Taxation (that is CO2 credit trading) places a cost to CO2 production beyond some set quota. Any firm which produces CO2 must abide by their lmits or a penalty is incurred - in the CO2 credit trading market or via a government imposed fine. Both of these methods increase the cost of doing business. An objective view on taxation would lead one to conclude that taxing a things discourages that thing. In this way carbon limits and "trading credits" (sounds so nice an innocnet doesn't it) are taxes on industry - which by definition means the proponents of CO2 trading want less business.

Proponents would argue they are pro business and simply want businesses to "invest" in CO2 reduction whereby the business could avoid the tax and even potentially profit from seeling unused "credits". That is only the upside of the situation - the downside is the business which can not afford to "modernize" their CO2 emissions and has neither the capital nor ready access to leverage their business and goes out of business.

There will be winners and losers in a "tax and trade" CO2 system - yet based on this analysis I can not determine who would benefit and who would go out of business.

David - do you or any other fool have some opinions ont he CO2 war winners and losers?

Thanks.

Known by my physician as CO2 producer nzsvz9

Report this comment
#61) On November 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

Aside from the economics of CO2 my favorite catch-22 from the climate change affirming believers is this one:

"We are past the tipping point, we can not reverse this trend, so we must do something now!" [insert celebrity spokesperson here]

I'm wont to recall Ted Danson's prediction in the 1980's that the world only had 10 years left ...

The earth will be here long after we are forgotten.

Known by future archaeologists as the remains of nzsvz9

Report this comment
#62) On November 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Melaschasm (65.13) wrote:

If there was a consensus, then there would be one model, and it would be fairly accurate.  That is what a consensus is.  There is no consensus.  There is mass confusion.  Confusion is fine.  That's the point.  Clear up the confusion and THEN implement policy.  Don't implement policy only to be find out that we were totally wrong.

Scientists do not speak in probabilities. Scientists attempt to find laws.  Einstein did not say that gravity is probably correct, or that e=probably mc squared.  See the Fenyman video above to understand the difference.

The Above is the context of the misquote being referenced.  While David may not have worded things the way you would prefer they be worded, if you take this statement in the context of all that has been said its meaning becomes clear and accurate.

David appears to be saying that if the science was settled, and there was a consensus with a very high degree of certainty, we would have one climate model, and it would be stated in terms more like a law than in terms of likely and probable.

The point being made by David and other opponents of extremely radical changes in laws about carbon emissions is that we do not know what mankinds actions are regarding climate change, with a degree of certainty needed to justify actions that will cause dramatic and harsh harm to the economy of the world, and likely will increase poverty and starvation.

Furthermore, the models which are predicting devastation have been consistantly inaccurate.  I would like to add that so far the closest predictor of actual tempuratures has been changes in solar activity.  If you look at solar activity, and predictions of future solar activity, it is becoming increasingly likely that the sun will cause a 25 year cooling phase, although it remains possible that solar activity will switch towards a warming trend sooner than anticipated.

From an investing standpoint this means buying solar stocks is risky as a 25 year cooling trend is not likely to generate the very harmful tax and subsidy programs needed to make solar profitable on a large scale. 

Report this comment
#63) On November 13, 2009 at 12:35 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

RonChapmanJr,

Fair enough Ron, but I think I cleared up exactly what I meant there, and I stand by that.  Science is without a doubt about the search for Laws, not a quest to find the best probabilities.  I don't see what is unclear about this statement.  Everyone, even lowly non-scientific mortals like you and I, deals in probabilities.  I certainly didn't mean to convey that they should never use them. It's ridiculous to say that a person shouldn't use probabilities.  I didn't word that one sentence very well.  Please pardon me.  But we should be clear now on what I mean.  And I stand by it.

I also want to point out, that while you and FoolsGrad have pointed out one statement I made, which I think I have made clear my meaning, not a single person has addressed the points I have stated in absolute clarity.

nzsvz9 

The benefit in the tax and trade system is big business, particularly big energy.  It will crush any ability for competitors to enter into their realm or compete on a fair playing field.  Internal memos released after Enron fell showed they were one of the leading proponents of Global Warming regulation.  They knew the score.  The very companies that the Left hates will be the big winners, along with the lobbyists, bureaucrats and politicians.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#64) On November 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

"Finally, Science and Nature journals are about as Fair and Balanced as Fox News."

 Omg did you really say that?  Compare the journals Science and Nature to Fox News?  Oh that's great stuff!  One of the funniest things I think maybe I've ever heard. So glad I decided to read more of this thread.

Report this comment
#65) On November 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

Dave,

Your level of dishonesty is quite puzzling, considering that you have continue to accuse those who agree with global warming to be dishonest.

"Your criticisms are false. Read the comments over again. Professor Horner made that accusation.  You can choose which side of that argument you fall on, and you have.  That's fine.  I'm not going to apologize for an accusatioin that Horner leveled, which Science claims is false.  That's for you to decide."

I have read the comments. You re-iterated someone else's comment. Do you now disavow your position given what has been shown to you? Or will you continue to evade this and trolling on as if the accusation of bias is correct?

I see very little honesty as you try to weasel your false claim by dumping the responsibility onto others. You used a false claim to support your point; you re-iterated a false claim in here. We called you out on it. Yet, you now say you do not have to admit you are in the wrong because you only repeated what others have said. 

This is cowardice and dishonesty.

 

"I never claimed that scientists don't "deal in" probablities. I said scientists, even Quantam Physicists, search for laws.  Is that really such a shocking pronouncement that you could find fault with it?"

This is a new low. Your exact quote was:

"Scientists do not speak in probabilities. Scientists attempt to find laws."

However, as many have pointed out, scientists speak probabilities ALL THE TIME. Again, people have called you out on this, and yet, you continue to say any probabilitistic statements made by scientists must mean there is no consensus. 

Do you now take back what you have said, or will you continue to equivocate?

But I am not surprised. Most skeptics are poorly trained in science; always perpetuating false claims and ideas; and continue to equivocate when their own theis has been questioned. 

 

Report this comment
#66) On November 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM, radoncer (28.00) wrote:

Lucas1985,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this.  Great posts!

Report this comment
#67) On November 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@FoolsGrad,
"Most skeptics are poorly trained in science; always perpetuating false claims and ideas; and continue to equivocate when their own theis has been questioned."
Most skeptics aren't even trained in general science. That said, there's a significant number of once brilliant scientists who embraced global warming denialism for financial or ideological reasons. See here:

John Mashey's investigation of the letter to the APS (American Physical Society)


@radoncer,
"Lucas1985,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this.  Great posts!"

You're welcome. Shameless liars and their bogus claims must be exposed. This isn't a trivial matter.

Report this comment
#68) On November 13, 2009 at 2:05 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

Oops. Here's the link to the lecture.

Report this comment
#69) On November 13, 2009 at 2:16 PM, darkstarsky (< 20) wrote:

It is pretty clear that Howard C. Hayden and whereaminow are a couple of right wing hacks:

Prof. Hayden was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank.

Whis is the Heartland Institute?

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems".[1] The Institute campaigns in support of:

"Common-sense environmentalism", such as opposition to the the Kyoto Protocol aimed at countering global warming Genetically engineered crops and products; The privatization of public services; The introduction of school vouchers; The deregulation of health care insurance;

and against:

What it refers to as "junk science"; Tobacco control measures such as tobacco tax increases (the Institute denies the health effects of second-hand smoke);

The institute was founded in 1984 by David H. Padden, now the President of Padco Lease Corporation and Joseph L. Bast, Heartland's President and CEO.[2] In 2007 it spent over $5.8 million on its activities.[3]

The Institute sees its primary audience as "the nation’s 8,300 state and national elected officials and approximately 8,400 local government officials."[4] For five of the Insitute's priority policy areas, Heartland produces 20-page tabloid-sized monthly newspapers which are primarily distributed to elected officials, journalists and donors. (The five publications are Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, Infotech & Telecom News and School Reform News.[4] Heartland also hosts PolicyBot, which it refers to as the "Internet's most extensive clearing-house for the work of free-market think tanks." The database contains 22,000 documents from 350 U.S. right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups.[5]

 The funnist thing is that the Heartland Institute claims to be not affiliated with any political party, business, or foundation.  This is a lie.  Just looks at some of their board of directors:

James L. Johnston Director and Senior Fellow, the Heartland Institute Board of Directors, Institute for Energy Research Board of Directors, Acton Institute for Religion and Liberty

Johnston is a former senior economist for the Amoco Corporation (I am sure he is not bias in any way)

Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/363/309/2005-363309812-0295fbb2-9.pdf

James M. Taylor Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute
Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News, Heartland Institute publication

Maureen Martin Senior Fellow for Legal Affairs, the Heartland Institute
Martin is a lawyer who formerly defended corporate clients, many of them against environmental law enforcement.
In the past, Taylor has served as a legal analyst for Defenders of Property Rights, an intern at the Cato Institute, and a member of the Federalist Society.

Also, Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997
$unknown Mobil Corporation
Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2005
$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Anniversary benefit dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
general operating support
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

 Also, On April 19, the University of North Carolina chapter of CFACT hosted Howard Hayden, a professor of physics emeritus from the University of Connecticut, Storrs. (For those of you just tuning in, CFACT is an anti-environmental front group with financial and strategic ties to corporations in polluting industries. More information can be found here, here, and here.)

Hayden is on the Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors of the industry-funded national headquarters of CFACT.

Sounds like Hayden is just trying to promote himself.

Report this comment
#70) On November 13, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Deepfryer (28.20) wrote:

"Nobody doubts that CO2 has some greenhouse effect, and nobody doubts that CO2 concentration is increasing."

I don't get it. What exactly is the "greenhouse effect" that CO2 has, if it does not cause global warming?

There may be some differences in the models used by scientists, but who cares? Every idiot in the world knows that CO2 causes global warming.

Hayden tries to argue that there is no proof that CO2 causes global warming... but then, he pretty much admits that CO2 does in fact cause global warming. Then he tries to argue that, although the world is warming, and CO2 causes global warming, we don't need to do anything about it, because it's not really that big of a problem.

I think he needs to figure out where exactly he really stands on this issue before he starts writing letter. Anyway, I will side with the rest of the scientific community on this one... Mr. Hayden is on his own here.

Report this comment
#71) On November 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"There is not a single model, out of the many you cite, that predicted the cooling period of the last 11 years. How is that in any way a consensus?"
- For the nth time, there's no cooling. Repeating something doesn't make it true.


Top 10 Warmest Years (DOC)
- Observed trends are well within a reasonable confidence interval compared to the projections.
- Most models agree with a climate sensitivity of 3 ºC for a doubling of the concentration of CO2.

"There is not one model that is even passably accurate"
Yeah



"lucas1985 is not a scientist. He has done zero peer reviewed research"
Yup, I'm not a climate scientist but neither are you. Is this a serious argument?
My scientific expertise (and peer-reviewed work) belongs to other areas but I have the basic knowledge needed to analyze the basic claims. In the areas where I have little or zero knowledge I rely on expert assessment.

"IPCC WG1 AR4 Report Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change <--- PDF
I can't stress enough that everyone should read this. Notice how every single conclusion is listed as likely with the word in italics. It is likely, not certain. It may even be seen as very likely and sometimes the less certain more likely than not likely."

Nothing is certain in science. Absolute certainty is reserved for mathematics and logic. If you inquire a little deeper you will find the following:
"In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment, of an outcome or a result:
 * Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
 * Extremely likely > 95%
 * Very likely > 90%
 * Likely > 66%
 * More likely than not > 50%
 * Unlikely < 33%
 * Very unlikely < 10%
 * Extremely unlikely < 5%.
"

And then
"* 1990: "The size of this warming is broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability"
 * 1995: "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate"
 * 2001: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"
 * And now ... drum roll, please ... 2007: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.""

Very likely = 90% confidence, close to 95% (p=0.05)

"How can anyone with a rational brain read this and determine that the science is settled?"
The science is not settled, but there's a strong expert consensus on the interpretation of the mountain of evidence. From the point of view of evidence-based policymaking, the discussion is over.


@Deepfryer,
"Hayden tries to argue that there is no proof that CO2 causes global warming... but then, he pretty much admits that CO2 does in fact cause global warming. Then he tries to argue that, although the world is warming, and CO2 causes global warming, we don't need to do anything about it, because it's not really that big of a problem."
This is the classic rhetoric of the AGW denialists:
- There's no global warming.
- There's a bit of global warming but it's caused by natural variations.
- There's a bit of global warming and it's partially caused by mankind but there's nothing to worry about.
- Global warming is real and it's mainly caused by mankind but a warmer world is a better world.
- Global warming is real, it's mainly caused by mankind and the outcome won't be pretty but doing something will ruin the economy.
- Global warming is real, it's mainly caused by mankind, the outcome won't be pretty and doing something may not harm the economy but geoengineering and markets will solve everything.

Report this comment
#72) On November 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

Lucas,

Your exhaustive search is much appreciated and as we can see, have made lots of deniers run away in the face of scientific data. No doubt, the same cowards will re-surface later with their ego intact due to their incredible power in "forgetting" any scientific data that do not corroborate with their preconceived biases.

I am also amused that Dave is trying to discredit you by telling others that you have no peer-reviewed articles. This is aboslutely hilarious!! Obviously having no published research has not prevented Dave from spouting his nonsense here. Once again, it really speaks volume about the integrity and intelligence of these deniers.

 

Report this comment
#73) On November 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Deepfryer (28.20) wrote:

"IPCC WG1 AR4 Report Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change <--- PDF

I can't stress enough that everyone should read this. Notice how every single conclusion is listed as likely with the word in italics. It is likely, not certain. It may even be seen as very likely and sometimes the less certain more likely than not likely.

How can anyone with a rational brain read this and determine that the science is settled?

David in Qatar"

Sigh. It's always a sad sight, when someone who knows nothing about science tries to adopt a "scientific" mentality. It's just not working for you, David.

The science is settled, and as the article states, there is "universal agreement that greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

Why would you want to disagree with a statement like that, made by the most highly-regarded scientists in this field? You honestly sound like a Creationist, with these pseuo-scientific arguments. Just because they used the word "likely", you are going to try to argue that they are WRONG in their conclusions? Good luck with that, buddy. Maybe you should stop trying so hard to be clever, and just admit that the best scientists in the world know more about this issue than you do.

I hope you realize that no scientist would ever claim that it is 100% certain that greenhouse gases caused global warming. And by the same token, no respectable scientist would claim that it is "100% certain" that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. That's just not how it works.

The fact is, scientists ALWAYS talk in terms of probabilities, and they ALWAYS make vague claims such as "likely", or "probably"... especially when trying to predict future events, or applying mathematical models to observed data.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the concept of uncertainty before you try to make any more of these clever blog posts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

This phrase in particular should be of some help:

"In scientific modelling, in which the prediction of future events should be understood to have a range of expected values."

You're on your own now. You'll either understand this, or you won't. I don't really care.

Report this comment
#74) On November 13, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Melaschasm (65.13) wrote:

I love all those graphs showing how models created in the past decade predict temps during the past, and thus they must be accurate.

That is like saying I can predict which party will win the US presidency in 2012 based upon the winner of the Superbowl (historically if the NFC wins, republicans almost always win and if the AFC wins, democrats almost always win).

These models will not be proven accurate until they have correctly predicted the future of global temps. If you chart solar activity and global temps, you will find a very close correlation. One that is just as close as all these global warming predictions.

I will make one quick prediction about future global temps. If the sun does go into a 25 year cooling cycle, as astronomers are predicting is increasingly likely, then global temps will go down. If the sun goes back to the warming cycle it has been in during the not so distant past, we will return to warmer weather.

And with that brilliantly accurate prediction, that did not cost taxpayers millions of dollars to create, I am out for the weekend. Have a great time, and good luck with your investments.

Report this comment
#75) On November 13, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Bamafan68 (97.51) wrote:

Lucas, very nice graph work. I'd like some clarification though please:

In the annual Mean Global Temperature Change graph, are the temperature monitoring stations in the same locations that they were in c. 1960? If so, how much urbanization has taken place around those sites? Urbanization affects temperature measurements. By the way, what were the temperature fluctuations prior to 1960? Is it possible that we are coming out of a mini Ice Age, which would make recent temperature fluctuations appear more extreme. (Scientists felt that we were in an Ice Age as recently as the 1970's. Remember the concerns about Global Cooling?) Are there direct correlations with atmospheric CO2 levels?

Report this comment
#76) On November 13, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Melaschasm (65.13) wrote:

I forgot to mention in my previous comment that I also enjoy seeing global warming charts that start no earlier than 1850, the last really cold time during the little ice age.

It would be much more valid from a data analysis standpoint to start the chart during the hottest year of the medieval warm period, and graph until today. That would allow us to view the changes starting with the peak of the previous cycle all the way to the peak of the current cycle (assuming we keep updating the chart until we reach the current natural cyclical peak).

I may not be a climatologist, but if I provided a chart like these to one of my customers, they would accuse me of presenting fraudulent data, and lose trust in all of the claims that I make.

Report this comment
#77) On November 13, 2009 at 5:53 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@Melaschasm,
"I love all those graphs showing how models created in the past decade predict temps during the past, and thus they must be accurate."
Models are validated both at hindcasting and at forecasting:
- Hindcasting
"Climate models successfully reproduce the main features of the current climate, the temperature changes over the last 100 years, the Holocene (6,000 years ago) and Last Glacial Maximum (21,000 years ago)."
- Forecasting
"   * models predicted that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
    * models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
    * models predicted warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
    * models predicted an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
    * models predicted sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
    * models predicted an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
    * and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct."

Also note that the second figure of models was made with the output of one model run from 1988. Look how good is the fit of observed temperatures to scenario B (the most plausible emissions scenario)

"If you chart solar activity and global temps, you will find a very close correlation. One that is just as close as all these global warming predictions."
Nope. The link between solar activity and global temps dissapears in the late 20th century.

Keep trying.

In other news:
Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.
"Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.
"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting.""

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Report this comment
#78) On November 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

I must wonder: Where did the denialists get their misinformation from? It's amazing how they have managed to become "educated" in junk science.

Report this comment
#79) On November 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

So let's review what we have here.

We have an attack on the Heartland Institute, as once again attacking the messenger and not the message is scientific. Now, if I were to attack the IPCC for it's role in creating the global warming hysteria, that would somehow be wrong (and notice I haven't done that), but attacking the Heartland Institute on the other hand is perfectly reasonable.

Deepfryer and lucas1985,

The difference between lucas and I is that I never claimed to be a scientist. Unlike lucas, the champion of cut and paste. I presented arguments for discussion and let me restate that not a single point I have raised has been addressed.

So let's look at it again.

If you say that A (rising CO2 levels) causes B (global warming) then A must come before B otherwise it can't be a cause and effect relationship. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that.

So, the peer reviewed research from the IPCC shows that the Earth started warming around 1700. But the CO2 levels didn't start increasing until the second half of the 19th century.

How can A cause B, if B came first?

Second, lucas is again being disingenuous. In fact, according to NASA, the hottest year on record is 1934.

Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007

Year Old New

1934 1.23 1.25

1998 1.24 1.23

1921 1.12 1.15

2006 1.23 1.13

1931 1.08 1.08

1999 0.94 0.93

1953 0.91 0.90

1990 0.88 0.87

1938 0.85 0.86

1939 0.84 0.85

NASA admits that 1934 is warmest year on record

1934!!!!!!!

That's right psuedo scientists, the hottest year on record is 1934. The third warmest year is 1921.

Holy crap, it's a good thing they went "green" back then.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#80) On November 13, 2009 at 9:52 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

FoolsGrad,

I must wonder: Where did the denialists get their misinformation from? It's amazing how they have managed to become "educated" in junk science.

It's called google. Try "NASA warmest year on record." Very simple.

Thanks for bringing absolutely nothing to the table except to cheerlead lucas's posts, which you clearly do not understand. I have asked you pointed questions and you have avoided them all.

How can A cause B, if B came first?

How can there be a consensus when there are twenty something models and not a single one predicted cooler temperatures?

And yes, despite what lucas says, they are cooler. 1934, 1921, 1931, 1953, 1990, 1938, and 1939 all rank among the top 10 this century. Hmmmm......

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#81) On November 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

lucas1985,

Yes, the work in the IPCC WG1 4th Assessement Report is laughable at best. I posted here for a reason. I want people who actually have to earn a living to read through it and see the difference between their own work and "government work."

In my line of work, computers, I can certainly tell my boss that if we have A it is likely (emphasis in IPCC report) that B will happen. But of course, he'll look at me like I'm an idiot. "You don't know for sure" he might say. "Then go and do more research. People are depending on us." Not you might claim that my work is very scientific, but then again you have no idea how difficult my work is so I don't really care. You sit in a university where you must spend hours working on your cut-and-past skills.

I have presented a logical argument. I don't fear your endless links and charts and graphs. The more I read them, the more convinced I become that the science is unclear and that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Abstract

Loehle, Craig. 2009. Trend analysis of satellite global temperature data. Energy & Environment 20(7): 1087-1098.

Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

Copyright © 2009 by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. All rights reserved. Article posted on this website with permission.

I am certainly aware that others disagree. Different temperature readings from different parts of the planet are telling us different things. And different starting points for the warming/cooling trend show different trends in cooling vs. warming.

That's my point. Your ponit is that AGW is correct, swear ont he Bible, absolute certaintly (except that the IPCC says it's likely). My point is that we don't know. You can post any link you want, and with a simple google search I can find counter evidence. This doesn't mean that AGW is false. This means that the science is not settled, which is the whole point of Hayden's post, my arguments, and the argument of every scientiest not working for the IPCC.

It's really that simple.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#82) On November 13, 2009 at 10:38 PM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

Dave,

"The difference between lucas and I is that I never claimed to be a scientist. Unlike lucas, the champion of cut and paste. I presented arguments for discussion and let me restate that not a single point I have raised has been addressed."

And when you have no scientific training, you should cut and paste established scientists for discussion. I know this concept is difficult for a habitual liar such as yourself to understand after you have informed us that you are free to bring false and disproven claims to the discussion as long as you are not the one who come up with it in the first place. 

So I would encourage you to do more cut-and-paste instead of perpetuating lies from the denialists and then absolve yourself from any responsibility after people called you out on it.

 

Believe me, I actually do not believe that drastic actions need to be taken to combat climate change right now. But what I cannot stand is your appalling dishonesty and failure to even grasp the most fundamental of science.

 

I still await your retraction on your earlier claim that scientists do not speak probabilities.

 

 

Report this comment
#83) On November 13, 2009 at 11:09 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

lucas1985,

Obviously you don't have the slightest idea about science funding and grants.

Actually, that was a fair point and so I researched it. Hey guess what, I was right.

Funding Flows for Climate Change Research and Related Activities

Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.

Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.

In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institution’s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.

FoolsGrad,

Oh baby, don't make this so personal. Did I hurt your feelings or something? Enough with the name calling. See comment #63 for clarication and retraction of that statement. That's what "please excuse me" and "this is clearly what I meant" and "worded poorly" mean. Time to move on big fella. Do you feel all warm and fuzzy inside now? I hope so. Everybody love everybody. Can we get back to the discussion at hand now?

Thanks,

David in Qatar

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#84) On November 14, 2009 at 2:57 AM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

So let me get this straight:

--whereaminow posts an article from a guy who actaully wrote to the EPA administrator, disagreeing with the fundamental idea driving EPA strategies.

--chk999, DaretotheRedux, and others add witty repartee.

--Point-by-point links, refutations, articles,  and comparisons are made...

--Accusations of being/not being a rigorous academian follow...

Wow!  All we need is someone to reference the Nazis, and Godwin's Law is complete...

..oh, wait...

Report this comment
#85) On November 14, 2009 at 10:38 AM, FoolsGrad (99.95) wrote:

"Oh baby, don't make this so personal. Did I hurt your feelings or something? Enough with the name calling. See comment #63 for clarication and retraction of that statement. That's what "please excuse me" and "this is clearly what I meant" and "worded poorly" mean. Time to move on big fella. Do you feel all warm and fuzzy inside now? I hope so. Everybody love everybody. Can we get back to the discussion at hand now?"

The discussion lies partially in your honesty. Comment #63 shows that you continue to stand behind your false belief. But that's alright-- we can't expect too much from a habitual liar.

There is little left to discuss now.Unless you summon enough courage to dispute lucas' evidence, it's just two people talking different things and nothing will get addressed.

But what we do know now is the level of scientific training hold by the skeptics.

Report this comment
#86) On November 14, 2009 at 12:56 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

Comment #63 shows that you continue to stand behind your false belief. But that's alright-- we can't expect too much from a habitual liar.

[Emphasis mine]

So, FoolsGrad, assuming everything you say is true--even your repeated use of derogatory terms like "liar", "coward", "preconceived", and "false"--what about the social and economic impact of Global Warming initiatives?

As I understand it, poorer countries are PO'd that carbon caps will inhibit development in their countries, while leaving developed countries in the lead.

In any strategic change of direction, there are big winners and big losers.  Many of the CAPsters here argue that big energy companies will become winners...at the expense of everyone else.

A British engineering society did a study and just announced (yesterday?  day before?) that it was impossible for Britain to meet the proposed carbon caps--not enough engineers, resources, GDP, money, or time.

What do you do with countries that refuse to follow the carbon caps?  Embargoes?  Terrorist status?  War?!?  If China refuses to meet the world's cap requirements, how do you get them to comply?  Too many to shoot.  Too big to blockade.  Too big economically to sanction.  (Heck, the US won't even take a stand on human rights issues with China...do you think we would actually commit an act of war?)

The problem with end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios is that you find yourself faced with "ticking time bomb" alternatives:  If it's really that bad, pull out the hot irons and jumper cables--nothing less will get things done.

Lastly, and more importantly, if the science is settled, then why has this video caused so much consternation?  Even a GW activists seem to be dumping on these people...yet they are also believers.  Why?

Report this comment
#87) On November 14, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Deepfryer (28.20) wrote:

"So, FoolsGrad, assuming everything you say is true--even your repeated use of derogatory terms like "liar", "coward", "preconceived", and "false"--what about the social and economic impact of Global Warming initiatives?"

The impacts will be terrific.

"As I understand it, poorer countries are PO'd that carbon caps will inhibit development in their countries, while leaving developed countries in the lead."

Then you don't understand it at all. Pretty much the opposite is true, with China being the one possible exception.

"In any strategic change of direction, there are big winners and big losers."

Not necessarily.

"Many of the CAPsters here argue that big energy companies will become winners...at the expense of everyone else. "

These people are wrong. The reason they make this argument is because they are part of the "war on liberalism" that is currently taking place in the United States. If any idea is accepted among liberals, then conservatives must oppose it, no matter how irrational their objections may be. If a liberal says that 1+1=2, then conservatives are obligated to disagree. That's just the way it is right now in the United States.

It appears that you fall into this camp, because apprently your position is that, even if global warming is clearly being caused by carbon emissions, we shouldn't try to do anything about it. That is an irrational position. There may be some obstacles, but does that mean we shouldn't try to do anything? It seems that you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

"A British engineering society did a study and just announced (yesterday? day before?) that it was impossible for Britain to meet the proposed carbon caps--not enough engineers, resources, GDP, money, or time.

What do you do with countries that refuse to follow the carbon caps? Embargoes? Terrorist status? War?!? If China refuses to meet the world's cap requirements, how do you get them to comply? Too many to shoot. Too big to blockade. Too big economically to sanction. (Heck, the US won't even take a stand on human rights issues with China...do you think we would actually commit an act of war?)"

Blah, blah, blah. Is there a point to these questions?

Are you saying that we should never try to reach any form of agreement with China, on any topic, because we don't have the necessary resources to go to war with them? Interesting viewpoint.

"The problem with end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenarios is that you find yourself faced with "ticking time bomb" alternatives: If it's really that bad, pull out the hot irons and jumper cables--nothing less will get things done."

What?

"Lastly, and more importantly, if the science is settled, then why has this video caused so much consternation?"

Huh? It hasn't caused anything. I didn't even bother to watch the video, because it only has 233 views. Am I supposed to care about some crackpot video? Just because you say it's important, that doesn't mean that it is.

"Even a GW activists seem to be dumping on these people...yet they are also believers. Why?"

Huh?

Anyway, it's weird how irrational conservatives have become over this issue. Even George W. Bush and John McCain have agreed that we need to take steps to reduce our carbon footprint.

Report this comment
#88) On November 14, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Deepfryer (28.20) wrote:

We have an attack on the Heartland Institute, as once again attacking the messenger and not the message is scientific. Now, if I were to attack the IPCC for it's role in creating the global warming hysteria, that would somehow be wrong (and notice I haven't done that), but attacking the Heartland Institute on the other hand is perfectly reasonable."

Yes that's right, it is perfectly reasonable.

Why should we take the opinion of a non-scientific organization? Especially one which is political in nature, and is an " American libertarian/conservative free market-oriented public policy think tank". Yeah, that sounds REAL unbiased. The fact that they are heavily funded by ExxonMobil is very relevant with regards to their credibility. Not to mention the fact that they only have 30 full-time members. What a joke.

I would much rather accept the findings of organizations such as:

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Statistical Association

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

US National Academy of Sciences

American Meteorological Society

Network of African Science Academies

International Union for Quaternary Research

Australian Coral Reef Society

And to refute your "points" - no one wants to hear the thoughts made by a layman, after taking a quick glance at some temperature statistics. Leave the analysis to the scientists, before you embarrass yourself any further.

Also, I am not impressed by Hayden's letter. I don't care if he writes a thousand letters expressing his opinion... it still would not carry the same weight as even ONE peer-reviewed scientific publication.

Report this comment
#89) On November 14, 2009 at 9:24 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

Apparently you misunderstand my point:

It's not that I don't believe we shouldn't do anything--it's a quesiton of how far you are willing to go.  If it's an iminent threat to all mankind, then the logical conclusion is that any opposition should be crushed--by any means, up to and including acts of war.  Is that the ultimate direction?

It's not that I don't "believe" in GW--but I'm automatically suspicious of any conclusion that is accepted as dogma...or "settled", as you may prefer.  Even evolution has to be reinterpreted every now and then.

And if number of views and number of peer-reviewed articles is your  criteria for truth, then I supposed you were with the majority on bailouts, invading Iraq, and voting for Bush in 2004?

Independent thinking is not a crime, my friend...

Report this comment
#90) On November 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

I know no one seems to be looking here anymore, but a funny thing happened on the way to the intarwebs....

Seems like my point about "how far would you go" isn't just philosophical.  As noted in these two articles,  the Evil Forces of Carbon march ever onward.

Apparently, greenhouse gas production (and the source of GW)  has continued to rise, primarily from developing countries.

This, despite the economic conditions and concerns by the more "enlightened" countries.

So, I ask again:  How far do you go?  To what extent do you punish the citizens of a country?

If I had to pick a side in the debate, I choose this one:

Report this comment
#91) On November 21, 2009 at 5:12 AM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

"It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

Leaked Emails Raise Questions About Collusion Among Scientists

The files, which in total amount to 160MbB of data, were first uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."

A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry."

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

==========================================

David in Qatar

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement