Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists

  • submit to reddit
cave in glacier, scientist, climate change

Jonathan Tucker in a cave beneath a glacier. (Photo: Rex Features via AP Images)

Most people who deny that human activity is warming the planet just dismiss a massive body of scientific evidence as a big hoax.

But there’s a more sophisticated set of climate “skeptics” who make arguments that, at least to the lay ear, sound like they’re grounded in scientific evidence. And because most of us lack the background to evaluate their claims, they can muddy the waters around an issue that’s been settled in the scientific community.

So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

Kevin Trenberth
Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

Here’s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies

(Graphic: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn’t. “It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,” he explains. “It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.”

He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth’s surface, “93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere — the weather — with long-term climate change.”

This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet’s surface and in its oceans:

Land, atmosphere and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). (Graphic: From Nuccitelli et al., 2012)

2. No, the IPCC Makes Projections, Not Predictions

In the real world, we have natural climate variability, and then we have human-caused warming,” says Ben Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who ranked 12th in a 2002 study of the most frequently cited scientists in the field. “And that human-caused warming is embedded in the rich, day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year and decade-to-decade noise of natural climate variability.”

Ben Santer
Climate researcher, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Santer was explaining the misleading nature of the claim that because the earth hasn’t warmed as quickly as some previous projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggested it would, the science is somehow suspect.

“Lord” Monckton and other skeptics make much of the fact that the IPCC’s first model projected that the planet would warm at a rate of 3.5 degrees Celsius, when real-world readings since then have shown a warming rate of 1.4 degrees per century.

According to Santer, “The inherent fallacy here is that they’re looking at very short-term changes over a decade or so and saying that if there’s some mismatch between modeled and observed changes over a short period of time, then that falsifies all climate models, and all of their projections of future climate change — but it does no such thing.

“What we do in our line of work is we beat down that short term noise of natural climate variability by looking at changes over long sweeps of time. This claim is classic cherrypicking — it’s treating IPCC results from previous assessments as predictions rather than projections, and exploiting short-term climate noise to argue that there’s some fundamental mismatch between the models and observations. If that were right, you’d see evidence of such a mismatch over long sweeps of time, but we don’t.”

John Abraham adds that “the atmosphere heated faster than the projections from about 1990 to 2000, and then they rose slower from 2000 to the present. And now, with a new El Niño forming, we’re probably going to see a new record and erase that slower trend.”

3. Yes, the Temperature Readings Are Reliable

Andrew Dessler
Professor of atmospheric sciences, Texas A&M University
“The thing to remember here is that scientists aren’t idiots,” says Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University and winner of this year’s Louis J. Battan Author’s Award from the American Meteorological Society.

Dessler was responding to a study conducted by Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman and prominent climate denier, for the Heartland Institute, which has received funding from the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil.

In 2009, Watts claimed that 90 percent of the stations used to monitor the earth’s surface temperature were positioned in places where they were prone to artificially inflated readings — near heat sources, for example.

“This was a big issue maybe four or five years ago,” says Dessler. “In fact, this was the issue the skeptics were touting. But if you look at the peer-reviewed literature, this was stuff that was answered years ago.

“It is true there are issues [with some surface monitoring stations], but you can make adjustments for them. For example, you can look at a station in a city, and say, ‘Okay, maybe there’s an urban effect,’ and then you compare the trend with a rural station nearby.” What matters most is the trend of rising temperatures measured at many different locations.

More to the point, says Dessler, “the surface temperature record is only one of eight or ten different data sets that we look at — and the others agree very well with the surface temperature record.” Scientists have compiled independent temperature data using weather balloons, satellite measurements and sea and ocean readings, and they all show the same thing: a warming planet.

4. Yes, There Is a Scientific Consensus

The most important thing to understand about the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the earth to warm is that it isn’t a result of peer pressure or someone policing scientists’ opinions. It results from the scientific method.

John Abraham
Professor of thermal and fluid sciences, University of St. Thomas School of Engineering
“Scientists are very interested in theories that other factors may be causing climate change,” says John Abraham. “The contrarians put forward ideas and the consensus scientists investigate them honestly and find that they don’t withstand scientific scrutiny. This happens all the time. That’s how science works. In fact, showing that these guys are wrong makes the science better.”

A scientific consensus emerges when the weight of evidence for a proposition becomes so great that serious researchers stop arguing about it among themselves. They then move on to study and debate other questions. There’s quite a bit of scientific debate about lots of different aspects of climate change, but the question of whether humans are causing the planet to warm isn’t one of them.

There have been three studies, using different methodologies, that have shown that almost all working climate scientists — 97 percent — accept the consensus view.

But what if those three percent who reportedly reject the consensus are like Galileo, who challenged the 16th century view that the sun revolved around the Earth? John Abraham and five of his colleagues published a study earlier this year which found that studies authored by climate contrarians “were often found to be unsubstantiated by the data,” resulting in “criticisms, corrections, and in some cases, resignation of editors.” They add: “the same fate has not befallen the prominent consensus studies.”

But that hasn’t prevented climate deniers from compiling long lists of people they claim to be dissenting climatologists. The most prominent of these was the Oregon Petition, which was organized by a chemist named Art Robinson, founder of a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which also markets a home-schooling kit for “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.”

The petition was supposedly signed by “31,000 American scientists” who opposed the consensus “entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals.” But in fact, anyone could sign on, and according to Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, the list ultimately included the Spice Girls and several Star Wars characters.

More recently, climate change denier Marc Morano, who in the past has worked for both Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James “Climate Change Is A Hoax” Inhofe (R-OK), compiled a smaller list that he says is proof that the consensus is “falling apart.”

Barry Bickmore, “a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican,” looked at a sample of the names on Morano’s list and found mechanical engineers, a biochemist and a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, but no working climate scientists who had published in peer-reviewed journals.

5. It’s Not the Sun’s Fault

Henrik Svensmark is a physicist and professor at the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen. He’s published a number of papers, spanning a decade, arguing that the Earth is warming as a result of solar activity.

He hasn’t been persecuted for these beliefs, nor run out of the scientific community on a rail. Nobody has tried to censor his views. Rather, his theories have been tested by other scientists, repeatedly, and don’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s how the scientific method works.

“There’s no evidence to support Svensmark’s contention,” says Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “It’s a testable hypothesis, and we routinely look at whether Svensmark’s ‘the sun explains everything’ hypothesis is in accord with available observations. And it isn’t.”

Santer explains that if the sun were warming the planet, we would see heating “throughout the full vertical extent of the atmosphere.” Yet scientists have found that while the lower atmosphere is heating up, the upper atmosphere is actually cooling, and that finding is “fundamentally inconsistent” with the idea that the sun is to blame. But, says Santer, that pattern is exactly what was “predicted by the earliest computer model simulations” of a planet that’s warming due to increased greenhouse gases.

6. Doubling Down With “Global Cooling”

Climate change deniers seized on an op-ed Henrik Svensmark wrote in 2009 for a conservative Danish newspaper claiming that the sun had entered a cooling cycle, and therefore the Earth would begin to cool as well.

“There is no credible data nor any credible scientist who would make this claim,” says John Abrahams. “Perhaps Cliff Clavin from Cheers might say this but not even the few contrarian scientists would agree that this statement is correct.”

Several of the other scientists we spoke to agreed that this claim is simply bizarre.

7. Yes, It’s Been Warm Before

Katharine Hayhoe
Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech
Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech, says that on three occasions she came down with food poisoning after eating at a certain chain restaurant. For some reason, she tried the chain again, and once again suffered from the exact same stomach pains the next day. She assumed that she was dealing with another bout of food poisoning, but it didn’t go away. Finally, after two weeks, she discovered that she was actually pregnant — it was morning sickness.

“Just because something happened before for one reason, doesn’t mean that when it happens again it’s for the same reason,” says Hayhoe in response to a claim, popularized by “Lord” Monckton, that the fastest warming ever recorded occurred in central England in the 17th century. This, says Monckton, was before the industrial revolution began, so “it cannot have been our fault.”

Anthony Leiserowitz: Making People Care About Climate Change
“Our planet is running a fever,” says Hayhoe, “and I can think of six or seven reasons why it could be running hot. As a scientist, you don’t just jump to conclusions. You do the tests. You say, ‘OK, could it be a natural cycle this time? Could it be the sun? Could it be volcanoes? Could it be orbital cycles and ice ages?’ We run those tests and we see if it could be any of those things that caused the climate to change naturally in the past. And in this case, we’ve run those tests and the answer to all those questions is, ‘no.’ In fact, if our temperature were controlled by natural causes right now, we’d be getting cooler, not warmer.”

Hayhoe also notes Monckton’s reliance on temperatures in Central England during odd ranges of dates, like 1663-1762. “It’s cherry-picking in both space and time,” she says. “If you’re going to look at global climate change, you have to look at global temperatures. When it’s hot in one place, it’s cold in another. And when you see weird dates, you should be suspicious — there has to be a reason why someone chose those odd dates. Climate scientists tend to use nice round numbers like 1800 or 1900.”

8. No, Antarctic Ice Isn’t Increasing

The claim that Antarctic ice is increasing rather than melting is an interesting one given the two major studies released this week which found that six large West Antarctic glaciers are in an irreversible state of decline.

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explains the importance of distinguishing between sea ice and land ice. Ninety-eight percent of Antarctica’s land mass is covered by ice that accumulated over thousands of years. This ice is melting at an alarming rate.

Sea ice, on the other hand, builds up in the winter and melts almost entirely in the summer. The difference between the two is crucial — melting land ice increases ocean levels significantly, while sea ice melt has a lesser effect.

Trenberth says that the claim is based on the spread of sea ice, not overall ice volume. “This is a very important distinction because sea ice gets blown around by the winds, and around Antarctica there are very strong winds,” he says. “And we actually know why the sea ice changes from year to year — we have solid evidence. When there are southerly winds, winds blowing away from the continent, then the ice spreads out and almost creates an ice factory because it opens up little gaps between the ice and then more ice forms in the gaps. That sea ice is often very thin, and while it can spread a long way, it doesn’t amount to much in terms of volume.”

The Antarctic winds are changing, sea ice is spreading out, and scientists have several theories to explain why. But the important thing to understand is that a number of studies, using different methods to approach the question, have all concluded that we’re losing massive amounts of land ice, and that’s what’s driving the rise in sea levels.

And 168 more…

These are only some of the most common pseudoscientific climate arguments. The Skeptical Science website provides easy-to-understand scientific rebuttals to these and 168 others.

A correction was made to this post.

Joshua Holland is a senior digital producer for BillMoyers.com. He’s the author of The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything Else the Right Doesn’t Want You to Know about Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America) (Wiley: 2010), and host of Politics and Reality Radio. Follow him on Twitter or drop him an email at hollandj [at] moyersmedia [dot] com.
  • submit to reddit
  • Anonymous

    “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

    Fine. Let’s just start from the beginning of the century. Does this look like a catastrophic warming trend?
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend

  • Dano2

    Why take a cherry-picked starting point and risk end-point bias?

    Best,

    D

  • John Samuel

    Are you ignoring the woodsfortrees guidance that using less than 30 years you can prove anything? Why, yes you are. Dolt.

  • Angela Walker

    One can always be certain that when dealing with a person who uses a faux patriotic name like “Freedom Fan” one is liable to run into lots and lots of bogus nonsense. :D

  • Richard .Rowe

    Define irony. The whole article was talking about data cherrypicked from a narrow timespan to support a predetermined conclusion…and here you are doing exactly that. My God…sign you up for a Nobel prize…using one graph, you’ve officially debunked the consensus of 98 percent of climate scientists. Guess that settles that then…now we can go back to drilling for more oil.

  • Brian Kern

    Dude, you can’t argue with freedom!

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t see an ad hominems. Mentioning someone’s other pursuits, that might reveal an unscientific agenda, helps the reader understand WHY such a person is making bizarre claims, under the guise of science.

  • Anonymous

    Did you even read this article? You’re “cherry-picking”:

    “That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the
    highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural
    temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest
    value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values
    are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming
    climate.”

  • Anonymous

    Did you even read this article?

    Scientists explained recently growing ice formations in Antarctica as a temporary phenomenon, due to wind and weather patterns.

  • Anonymous

    I think you’re confused about the cause of the collapse, and the IMPACT of its collapse and melting.

  • Anonymous

    And that is only sea ice. The land ice or ice caps is in decline in the west and stable at best in the East.

  • Anonymous

    It is quite the tactic of liberals to attack one’s pedigree and credentials even when they have neither.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, and a theory is one that has been confirmed by experimental evidence and these people have only conflicting data.

  • Anonymous

    Meanwhile more Russian ice breakers are getting trapped in the Arctic.

  • pixeloid

    Great collection of stuff to throw at all the science denying trolls out there. Of course, no amount of evidence will ever change their minds, but at least the debunking is useful for other reasonable people.

  • Alvaro Nieto

    You guys are laughable to anyone that isn’t as intellectually deficient as you seem to think your audience is, one of you rants in allegedly learned detail and the other one says “yup yup he’s right”……….trolls.

  • Anonymous

    Experimental evidence confirms AGW. We can measure CO2 trapping and emitting more back radiation. The fingerprints of warming fit the CO2 expectations and none other.

  • Anonymous

    Citation? I say BS. You are calling for reflection which requires a surface, as every physicist knows and gases cannot form surfaces. Or, intelligent re-emission which requires either tiny pilots in white coats on every molecule of Divine Intervention! Which do you claim? but again, citation please.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for posting this excellent article. Not sure it will change the minds of those committed to unbelief in the scientific method. But so it goes, to quote Vonnegut.

  • Brendan Doyle

    You know, it really makes you look foolish when you comment on an article that you clearly either didn’t bother to read, or having read it, completely failed to comprehend. All the “points” you so strenuously try to make are addressed and debunked in the article above. In other words: they’re talking about you.

  • Landon Solomon

    I have to agree with JeffereyRO55 here. while not a coffin nail, it’s an indicator of potential bias. Kind of goes in to the whole reason why public broadcast systems are important. If they know they are getting funded and don’t have to worry about upsetting their sponsors they are more likely to publish and broadcast balanced views than otherwise. Fox can be given a line from the head man because he controls all the money, in theory that’s not the case at PBS (or at least, wasn’t.)

  • Landon Solomon

    They also explained that the growth is a result of spreading, contributing far more to covered area than to volume. If will quickly go away again according to past observations whereas the land ice will not replenish quickly.

  • skeptic2525

    What are you talking about? Nowhere in this article are Roy Spencer’s religious views mentioned.

    Unless that is, you are referring to his denial of evolution. But I thought “intelligent design” was science. Are you then admitting that i.d. is religion masquerading as science and Roy Spencer denies scientific evidence when he feels it conflicts with his religious convictions? It would seem so.

    BTW: Did you know Bill Moyers is an ordained Baptist Pastor? I hardly think a site bearing his name is the kind of place you’d find religion bashing. I think you just have a persecution complex.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks. The post has been corrected.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not going to bother with the climate-deniers but would encourage anyone who wants to to check out the Skeptical Science website linked at the bottom of the piece. It has answers for every crazy claim they can possibly make.

  • Dano2

    but temperatures have NOT increased for 17 years.

    I like it when they believe this hokum. How come the deniers never question why they aren’t given 18 years? 16? 19? 15?

    Funny.

    Best,

    D

  • BubblesGump

    But there is a hockey puck.

  • BubblesGump

    Wrong.

  • BubblesGump

    You are a tool.

  • BubblesGump

    Go back to listening to Yawn Handily and O’Really. They’ll tell you the truth and set you free.

  • BubblesGump

    Have you thought of reading to the elderly instead of driveling your comments?

  • BubblesGump

    There is, however, a 97% chance, that you are totally irrelevant.

  • BubblesGump

    I’m sorry, your information is incorrect for the planet Earth. As with most bubba neocons, you’re obviously talking of your world, Bizzarro World.

  • Mike Schneider

    Ice cores lie. How dare they — don’t they know they could get sued?

  • NotARedneck

    “But I thought “intelligent design” was science.”

    Then your “thoughts” really aren’t worth much. Sorry to bring this to your attention but to be a supporter of right wing fundamentalist religion is proof positive that one is basically stupid. (unless of course, you are a fraudster who uses this as an easy way to make $ millions from the ignorant – then it is likely that you don’t really believe this and only use it to line your pockets)

  • Anonymous

    Have you ever stopped to think about the more common claim that it’s just all a big hoax?

    It’s an interdisciplinary field, so there are researchers looking at a bunch of different pieces of the climate puzzle — people who dedicated their careers to studying the icepack, or ocean acidification, or measuring temperatures on the surface and the sea and the upper atmosphere, etc.

    These scientists come from around the world, use different instruments and methodologies, and are based in both academic and governmental research facilities. The consensus that AGW is real is a result of all of their very diverse data being consistent.

    Which means that in order for it to be a hoax, they all had to have decided one day to falsify their data — in the same direction — and the entire scientific establishment had to have gone along with the fraud.

    Their supposed motive is either a hatred of capitalism – all these scientists from different places and different backgrounds are crypto-Marxists who decided to skip politics in order to devote their careers to studying the climate — or the
    promise of fame and fortune that inevitably results from delivering bad news about the environment.

    It has to be one of the weirdest conspiracy theories ever.

    Anyway, having spoken to a lot of serious, working scientists this week, I can report that they all share a genuine and deeply held passion for knowledge. Then you look at the deniers’ side and, with very few exceptions, they’re just as clearly motivated by political ideology.

    It’s sad that so many people believe there’s a real debate here.

  • NotARedneck

    The wealthy always have their house out of the flood zone. However, they want the RIGHT to develop housing on land they own that they know will be flooded.

    “Don’t tell ME how to vote!” is what they say when you point out that many people are voting against their interests. Of course, the wealthy are voting for their narrow interests.

  • NotARedneck

    xx

  • NotARedneck

    “Mentioning someone’s other pursuits, that might reveal an unscientific
    agenda, helps the reader understand WHY such a person is making bizarre
    claims, under the guise of science.”

    So true. The same thing applied when many of these same “scientists” were taking money from the tobacco industry. Basically, they are serial liars and shills for the wealthy interests who pay them to work against the public good. They should be serving time in prison for fraud.

  • moderator

    If you choose to repeatedly violate our comment policy you will be banned from further participation in the community.

    Sean @ Moyers

  • JonThomas

    Wait one second… reasonableness and commitment to truth!? Are you sure you’re setting the right example? You were supposed to change the subject and double down. At least you could have called someone a pinhead. =))

  • Anonymous

    The 97% is ridiculed by deniers but not by people who are seriously interested in and aware of science. In the particular study you refer to (there are several with similar results) where some authors said their papers did not fit into the categories the study placed them in a majority of those scientists said their studies were more supportive of AGW than assessed. In fact the study author saection of that study showed more agreement with AGW than the paper review section.

    The question being assessed is not “does CO2 effect climate” it is “is man driving current climate change”

    Your Einstein analogy is accurate but not how you use it. The Einstein in this case is at least back to Gilbert Plass in 1956 presenting the CO2 theory of climate change. At the time few believed him but then the evidence came in and almost no climate scientists don’t accept the theory now. The few, such as Lindzen, are moot

  • Anonymous

    The cause is warming seas. The volcano will have a local effect but it may well be recent and is only active in a small part of the affected area.

  • Anonymous

    So you can’t tell the difference between local and global either?

  • Anonymous

    All you are doing now is to display your lack of knowledge of both science in general, and climate science.

    You think AGW hasn’t made any accurate predictions? It has. If you really don’t know about them, you have no business speaking as if you knew anything about it.

  • Anonymous

    This chap seems to have some differences with the views printed above: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/17/pseudoscientists-eight-climate-claims-debunked/ .

  • charles

    what? All I am aware of is data collection not science by the so called consensus! LOL

  • charles

    affirmative action? I don’t by it he would have got in somewhere unless his grades were Bad which I dont think was the case.

  • jan heaton

    as a hairdresser , in the 70s, we were told -”the freon in our hairspray was causing “global warming” by putting holes in the ozone layer,”so freon was removed.-We learned that each tree sequesturs carbon so everyone should plant a tree., but when a nun from toledo ohio tried to help the poor while protecting the rain forrest she was murdered.
    the keystone project starting in canada chopped acres of trees, as far as the eye could see. I suggest a tree-cutting permit, for each tree- paid for by the oil companys !

  • charles

    Ever wondered why Big Business and also oil got behind climate change?
    It called Tax –business just raiaes price to consumer. Most of tax will go to carbon credit(third world country as money) Then that third world country has money to invest with industry in third world country…where bisiness used to have to fund all of the third world interest(share) in venture… Take mining like congo FCXhad to give Congo 24 25 percent or more plus pay there 24 percent of costs of building mine….
    Hence why CORp’s are behind it, why fight it besides carbon trading will do nothing to lower co2 emissions and besides it appears co2 has already max out!

    IF

  • John Bell

    Don’t you dare heat your house in the winter, or use an air conditioner or drive a car, or cook on the stove or use your computer, because that would make you look like a “denier” as they call my kind. If I were a warmist I would not be caught dead in a car or an airplane. I would set a golden example and walk or ride a bicycle or use a paddle boat. No phone, no lights, no motorcar, not a single luxury!

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, but you are full of it. All of those activities you mention cause very real and very serious environmental problems besides global warming, so if you were really willing to give them all up in the name of a healthier environment, you would do so whether you believed in global warming or not.

    I’ve yet to read where anyone is suggesting that we give up all modern conveniences and start cave dwelling again. That’s a straw man argument that deniers use to make those that actually believe in the science of global warming look like hypocrites. Believing in the science of global warming is no different than believing in gravity or electricity. These are all things that are well understood by the relevant experts. But when people like you are faced with even the slightest inconvenience, such being asked to be more careful with your electricity use or to drive a more fuel efficient car, you suddenly call the science into question. Why aren’t you just as skeptical about the scientific discoveries that make your life so much better? Why do you trust the relevant experts that say it’s safe to use your computer?

  • Anonymous

    Just a quick note: I had no idea you were working for Bill. I remember when you were a new kid on the block. Proud of you Josh! Keep up the good work!

  • skeptic2525

    It would appear we are on the same side of this issue which you would have realized if you had even rudimentary reading comprehension skills. Please, please, please, quit being on my side. You’re only hurting the cause with your blatantly evident level of stupidity.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    I could not agree more. Thom Hartmann has talked at length about this very real problem that they are certain is occurring. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed it with increasing regularity (notably around key issues ‘global warming’, ‘redistribution of wealth’, and lately ‘net neutrality’. Occasionally i’ll ponder what a person must be like if they are willing to compromise integrity for money or if they truly believe the nonsense.

  • Dano2

    o Accepting AGW means that you need to stop breathing, live in a cave, sell car, etc [25 points]

    facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    You were duped into spreading disinformation. Do be more careful next time.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    I think there is enough evidence to be able to state that a certan % of comments on particular topics are from paid hacks. But I can assure you there is a small set of deniers out there who truly believe man has nothing to do with changing the earth.

    Whether this is to protect their self-identity, avoid buyer’s remorse, whatever is irrelevant. They are a voting minority and we can move forward.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    You’ve been duped (willingly?) into spreading disinformation. Anyone with a decent high school science class can see right through this hokum.

    Jus’ sayin’.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    o GHG’s are ‘saturated’ [25 points]

    facebook(d0t)com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Warming for 18 years. 16 years. 19 years. 15 years. 20 years. 14 years. 21 years. 13 years.

    You’ve been duped (willingly?).

    Best,

    D

  • http://gripernews.blogspot.com Wisco

    “If I were a warmist I would not be caught dead in a car or an airplane.”

    Which explains why you’re a denier — you have no understanding of the issue at all.

  • Anonymous

    Far from it. Your link is not directly relevant to the article, nor to the rebuttal of which my link goes to, but your link does refer to Monckton. I have yet to see Monckton’s key points rebutted by anyone, least of all the usual suspects at SkS.

  • Anonymous

    Unless you fully understand a process, you cannot accurately “model” it. If you understand, or think you understand, 1,000 factors about the process but there are another 1,000 factors you only partially know about, don’t know about, or have incorrectly deemed unimportant in a phenomenally complex process, there is no possibility whatsoever that your predictions from the model will be accurate, and the further out you go in your predictions, the less accurate they will probably be.

    The current climate models certainly do not have all the forces that create change in the climate integrated, and there are who knows how many more factors that have not even been realized as yet. I suspect there are a huge number of them if my reading about the newly discovered climate relevant factors discovered almost weekly is anything to judge by. Too little knowledge, too few data points or proxy data points with uncertain accuracy lead to a “Garbage in – Garbage models – Garbage out” situation. Unfortunately, with the current dogma, that’s actually, “Garbage in – Garbage models – Grants out.”

    An example of the sort of AGW “scientific consensus” that DIDN’T happen in another field: “As cosmologists, we are 100% certain that we understand 100% of what comprises the universe – matter and energy. Oh, wait, we’ve discovered evidence of dark matter and dark energy. We are now 100% certain that we understand 4% of what comprises the universe.”

    But I doubt you could have found a cosmologist or physicist who would have ever made that sort of conclusive statement. If asked, all of them would have said, “We could very easily be _totally_ wrong.”

    I _NEVER, EVER_ hear that from the AGW proponents.

    Considering the extreme complexity of this planet’s climate system as a 60 year old retired technology professional and lifelong, serious amateur scientist, I submit that AGW proponents likely know only a tiny fraction of what they need to know to make predictions of any long-term accuracy. The one thing that is certain to me on this issue is that their certainty is both completely unjustified and arrogant.

  • Anonymous

    my friend’s step-mother makes $67 /hour on the
    computer . She has been without work for 5 months but last month her pay check
    was $15442 just working on the computer for a few hours. look at this web-site
    F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • laserbabe

    the exact buffoonery we expect from the ignorati. thank you for helping make our point.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks!

  • laserbabe

    nothing penetrates. we just need to keep our own eyes on the prize.

  • Anonymous

    My problem is the lack of a total solution. Destroying business and shutting down every power plant won’t fix the problem as long as we are cutting down rain forests to grow more food for an ever expanding population. We have to come to the conclusion that earth can only support x number of people and adjust our population to that level. Unless we can solve this problem (I have no suggestions) nothing else is anything more than a delaying action.

  • Scott Jamieson

    Ahem.

    “But I thought “intelligent design” was science.”=sarcasm.

    Someone needs to invent a special font for sarcasm.

  • Dano2

    That’s a lot of irrelevant gibberish packed into such a small space. Congratulations!

    Best,

    D

  • Asaangel

    Please do an article on the geo-engineering (spraying of chemtrails) that is happening all over the planet is increasing global warming! There are scientists who have already studied and proven this is true, but mainstream media won’t even Discuss the reality of it happening!!

  • Anonymous

    Destroying business and shutting down every power plant aren’t solutions that anybody but climate deniers put forth. Burning those strawmen may give you a warm feeling, but it isn’t winning any arguments.

    Now, if you wish to get population under control, there is one thing that works as well as anything short of forced sterilization or genocide. And it doesn’t qualify as a war crime or human rights abuse, quite the opposite.
    Educate women.

  • Dano2

    Ah. You’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Best,

    D

  • Anonymous

    Don’t put words in my mouth. The earth is warming, everyone knows that. I just saying until you can control the population you can’t do anything to fix global warming. Educating women is a silly answer. Our poor live better than 95% of the people on this planet, we offer free education and yet our population isn’t all that bright.

  • Anonymous

    The ozone layer issue has nothing to do with global warming. Entirely different issue.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not an expert, but it is usually isotope ratios. Oxygen usually has 8 protons and 8 neutrons, Oxygen-16. However there are other isotopes that have different numbers of neutrons, one of them being Oxygen-18. Since a water molecule that has an Oxygen-18 atom is heavier than one that has an Oxygen-16 atom, the O-18 containing water molecule doesn’t evaporate off the ocean as easily when it is colder. If it can’t evaporate, it can’t make it inland to fall as part of a snowflake that gets incorporated as part of the ice sheet.
    By carefully measuring the ratio of O-16 to O-18 and comparing that to what occurs naturally, they can get a temperature for that layer of ice.

  • http://www.dailykos.com/user/shpilk shpilk

    Defending the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries is hard work.

    It requires an extensive imagination, belief in conspiracy theories,
    and a rigorous disregard for the truth.

  • Anonymous

    1905 (95 years before 2000, as labeled) isn’t “right now”.

  • Anonymous

    If you research it, you’ll find that populations with higher rates and levels of educational achievement of women have lower birth rates.

    Quoting “Destroying business and shutting down every power plant” isn’t putting words in your mouth. It’s called quoting you.

  • Anonymous

    Why would anybody bother debunking all that Monckton blathers on about. There is a point where a persons credibility is so far gone that there is no point taking them seriously without extreme evidence to the contrary. By the way all Monckton does is repeat a bunch of cherry picked graphs he’s issued before.

    Monckton is taken apart:
    Monckton’s claims to having a science background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
    On Climate sensitivity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
    On glaciers and himilayas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
    Monckton misquotes actual scientists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
    More random errors from Monckton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo

    In this you will find lots to debunk the article you site.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, there are two ways in which it does. The most obvious one is that Freon CFC is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas. It has a 100-year GWP of 10,200 for the CFC-12 formulation and 13,900 for CFC-13. The other is more subtle and it has to do with the ozone hole reducing absorption of UV from the Sun causing stratospheric wind patterns to change and changing the rate of formation of polar stratospheric clouds which are better blankets than shades. Although there isn’t much of them, they account for 11% of the warming from ‘well-mixed greenhouse gases’ according to IPCC AR5.
    *GWP is Global Warming Potential and ranks the gas in comparison to a molecule of CO2 over a specified timeframe. One CFC-12 molecule is worth 10,200 CO2 molecules after 100 years. One methane molecule is worth 84 over 20 years, but just 28 over 100 years because methane reacts with oxygen and carbon monoxide and becomes CO2 and water vapor. CFC-13 has a longer lifetime and actually increases from a 20-year GWP of 10,900 to a 100-year GWP of 13,900.

  • Anonymous

    If we apply the Cheney doctrine to this threat, then massive action to reduce fossil fuel usage is needed now, as there is clearly a much greater than 1% chance that climate scientists are correct. So let’s stop blathering about the motivations of climate scientists or the Koch brothers and get on with it.

    Solar hot water
    Photovoltaic panels on roofs
    Electric cars
    Self-driving cars for more efficiency
    Heat pumps
    Biofuels like those produced by Algenol
    Increased telecommuting
    4-day work week
    PV foundries that are self-powered
    Geothermal Lithium production

  • Nicko Thime

    In the minds of the truly stupid ideology always trumps science. One is written in stone so is easier to accept as the other requires critical thinking. If they were capable of that, they wouldn’t accept dogma over observation.

  • Nicko Thime

    Can’t fix stupid. It is to the bone.

  • Nicko Thime

    He was speaking of reasonable people.

  • Nicko Thime

    I drove into a gas station with a friend of mine not too long ago. There was a pallet of steer manure for sale outside. My buddy asked the clerk if that steer manure was the same thing as bullsh–.
    You have a large pile of what might be steer manure, but I think it is more likely bull sh–.

  • Nicko Thime

    Lindzen is one of those scientists you can point to as being for sale.
    He sold himself to the tobacco companies and he sold himself to big oil.

  • Nicko Thime

    Benghazi!!!!!!!!
    Because Al Gore is fat.

  • Nicko Thime

    One is earned, Nobel Laureate. You are recognized by your peers and others.
    The other is merely a meaningless royal title that we here in America should ignore.

  • Richard .Rowe

    Hope you appreciate this…I had to scroll down through a lot of your other BS before finally finding this thread again. And yes, I think we probably can believe that Arctic warming in 1922 had something to do with human activity, seeing as how the Industrial Revolution started 160 years before that, and we’d been burning massive quantities of coal for at least 100 years prior. So, yes, I really do think that a century of coal-powered global mechanization and one world war might have had something to do with global warming in 1922.

    As far as your “glaciers” deal…I’m not going to bother elaborating on the concept of “local weather” vs “climate trends” for you, since a dozen others have done so in response to your comments, and it hasn’t seemed to penetrate your deliberate ignorance yet. But, just for the Hell of it: More freshwater in the oceans + more water vapor in the atmosphere + more pollutants for water vapor to coalesce on + changing wind patterns + cooling of the upper atmosphere = increasing ice mass in high-altitude places like the freaking Himalayas. I’m sorry…I know that’s a little more complicated than “it’s a hoax by Al Gore,” and doesn’t appeal as much to your predisposition toward simple answers. But not everything in the world is in black or white, or is free of complexity…that’s why we pay really smart people with educations to give their opinion, instead of asking everyone…with a Disquss account what he thinks.

  • Richard .Rowe

    Yes, but volcanoes have existed for billions of years. And there’s been no more volcanic activity in the last 200 years than there was during the triassic. Volcanoes are a natural source of CO2…they’re SUPPOSED to be putting out those gases. We’re not. We’re adding to the mass that they’ve been pumping out for billions of years. Blame anything, as long as it means we do nothing, right?

  • Richard .Rowe

    Don’t bother, Jeffrey…he doesn’t grasp irony. Irony is a hoax by Jewish — sorry, “globalist” — conspirators.

  • Richard .Rowe

    Well…poor, poor industry. You dance with the Devil, you get burned. It’s not the rest of the world’s fault that people have built their economic lives on fossil fuels. That’s part of the problem. We can’t keep burning this crap forever just to the protect economic interests of people who found some money in the ground. Tough titty for them…economies will adapt, like they always have. They’ll just have to find new sources of revenue. Oh well. But, then again, corporate loyalty is kind of the hallmark of your generation, so we shouldn’t be surprised that you work so fervently to protect its interests.

  • Richard .Rowe

    When logic fails and reality doesn’t support a position, lawyers will always lawyer their way to a win with semantics. Questioning the language itself is the last refuge of the desperately wrong…case in point.

  • Richard .Rowe

    Sarcasm…CNTRL + I for Italics. That’s my vote ;)

  • Richard .Rowe

    Oh, my GOD…you’re RIGHT!! I’m sitting here in Miami right now, and it’s only 78 degrees. It was 80 degrees at this time yesterday…that means the whole planet dropped by 2 degrees in ONE DAY! Damn you, Al GOORRRRRREEE!!!

  • Richard .Rowe

    No, you’re giving him too much credit for ignorance. He can tell the difference. It’s just his corporate loyalty that forbids him from acknowledging it.

  • Dano2

    Exactly: reality doesn’t support the hilarious “hypothesis” hokum.

    Best,

    D

  • Peter J. King

    Then ignore it (as I would, if I were talking about him); putting it in inverted commas on each occasion of use argues for ignorance rather than a political point. It very, very slightly spoils what’s otherwise a reasonable article.

  • Nicko Thime

    “lord” is meant to be dismissive of title as to let us know we should not be impressed by such bullpuckey. The author was making fun of the fact that being a “lord” is of zero consequence in the debate.
    Since “Lord” Monckton is selling bulls— it seems more than appropriate.

  • Peter J. King

    If you were right, my comment would stand: the constant repetition would indicate a rather childish obsession. In fact, though, it seems clear that the author is confusing Monckton not being a member of the House of Lords with his not being entitled to the title “Lord”. The two are in fact not the same. (Incidentally, being a Nobel Laureate has little if anything to do with recognition by one’s peers; it’s decided by committees, and the decisions of various committees have attracted a great deal of criticism over the years.) His being a member of UKIP is far more significant than his membership or otherwise of the House of Lords or of the peerage, neither of which has any political or other relevance to the issue here
    .

  • Anonymous

    wattsupwiththat has earned a well deserved reputation for having its anterior inserted in its posterior. If you quote them, then you lose. You need to actually go to a real site.

    They’re the moral equivalent of one of these sites claiming that they’ve got a “natural” cure for cancer.

  • Anonymous

    Actually your article is the one that is hokey. Have you looked at the graph in the article?

  • Kevin Schmidt

    You can’t argue with freedumb either.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    When it comes to determining what is fact and what is fiction regarding Climate Change, only climate scientists get to vote. If deniers don’t like it, they can go to college and get a PhD in climate science. Of course if by some miracle they actually got degrees, they would no longer be deniers.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Hoisted on their own cherry picking petard!

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Which is why the fossil fuel industries push nonexistent, unproven future technology like hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion, instead of current proven technology like solar panels, wind and geothermal.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    When a person claims to be an expert, then ad hominems that credibly refute their expertise are not logical fallacies or “pointless points.”

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Ever wonder why your strawman conspiracy theory does not discredit the reality of AGW Climate Change?

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Try using “snark” or :) at the end of the comment.

  • Richard .Rowe

    Maybe…but I always assumed they pushed those energy sources because they still require consumables which have to be supplied. As long as you’re consuming something for energy, the people already supplying consumables like oil and coal can just shift industries. Go to something like wind, solar, geothermal or tidal that requires the consumption of nothing, and the suppliers are out of business. That’s why I figured they liked them anyway.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Births have stabilized, which means population will stabilize. Estimated peak is 14 billion.
    We don’t have too many people, we have too many people living inefficiently in an unsustainable manner.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    I have a natural cure for cancer!
    Here it is for free:
    Stop eating toxic GMO, nonorganic, factory farmed pseudo food.

  • Richard .Rowe

    And the “chap” in question is “Lord” Monckton himself, writing in response to this very article. As, I suspect, are you.

  • Richard .Rowe

    I wouldn’t bother, Wayne. “ClimateLEarner” is almost certainly Monckton himself, spamming this comment section by posting his response article. Piss up a rope, M’Lord.

  • Kevin Schmidt

    Renewables also diversify energy production to the consumer, destroying the fossil fuel industries’ ability to maintain price gouging monopolies.

  • Richard .Rowe

    Every battle is a “delaying action” until the war is over. But all wars are fought and won one battle at a time. If there were ever a clear-cut plan for decisive victory at the beginning, we’d always skip straight to that. Nobody ever said saving the human race wasn’t going to be a war fought one trench at a time. Or that there would ever be such thing as a definitive “victory.” Everybody dies, and every species eventually dies…it’s inevitable. We’re all just stalling for time. But we still fight for our lives, every day, trench after trench. We fight for just that one more day, so we can fight again tomorrow. That’s what we do. What we don’t do is just give up today’s fight because we don’t want to face tomorrow’s problems. If you’re too tired to fight, then feel free to rest…leave the next foxhole to those of us with a future to fight for.

  • Anonymous

    I was using that as extreme examples. I would disagree that higher education is the cause of lower birth rates and that the real reason revolves around economic status related to employment.

  • Anonymous

    How silly – had difficulty making it past the first point after seeing a graph that confirms a downward trend in temperatures over the last 15 years. The warming has stopped but the heat is hiding in the ocean? Didn’t Trenberth propose this several years after the “pause” had begun? Seems pretty convenient. What does it mean that you refer to AGW as climate change, a natural and ongoing process, rather than global warming? The pause is widely acknowledged and the real long term trend is down as I’m sure you’re aware.

    If Hansen had told us 25 years ago that global warming meant some imperceptable warming of the oceans, I suspect that paper would have been lost to time.

  • agecon

    What graph? Your comment, connected with your pseudonym brings disrepute to my alma mater. So do the the cheap and dishonest statements by Prof. Dessler in this article. Where has Svensmark claimed that “… the sun explains everything”?

  • Anonymous

    So you don’t accept Global Warming Theory?

  • Anonymous

    Global Warming models are as reliable as predictions of Sockeye Salmon runs. Take a hint from Mr. Suzuki “Nobody knows what happened. But nature surprised us. And I believe that nature has many more surprises if we can pull back and give her room.”
    So pull back from the frantic demonization of CO2. Nature is just as likely to surprise us with another Ice Age.

  • Anonymous

    So you believe there’s a conspiracy of fossil fuel and nuclear power industries?

  • charles

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA
    Engineering Earth’s Thermostat with CO2?

  • charles

    

  • Anonymous

    Actually, there is a conspiracy among the fossil fuel suppliers to deny climate change and to keep people from using renewable energy. There is also a conspiracy among nuclear power producers to downplay the risks of nuclear power. These two groups aren’t particularly on the same page or have the same agenda.

  • Nicko Thime

    What are you babbling about?

  • Anonymous

    Best answer! Educate a woman and you educate a family.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    The surprises of nature go both ways, and usually don’t work in our favor.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    “Glaciation events” happen over MILLIONS of years, giving plants and animals time to adapt and migrate (think how long it takes trees to migrate), not over lifetimes (hundreds of years). Even if the SUN, which has a stable output measurable across hundreds of thousands of years thanks to ice-core data, went into a huge dip in output, the effects on our planet should be small, as most of our heat comes from geothermal energy (up from the ground, not out of the sky). You see, Global Warming, the Climate Disruption caused by man via GHG pollution of CO2 from burning carbon fuels in the atmosphere, doesn’t just trap more of the Sun’s energy as it penetrates our atmosphere and warms the surface of the waters. CO2 reflects LONG-WAVE infrared radiation, the heat waves that come from our planet’s core. Slowing, our surface cooling is like putting a blanket on a radiator, not painting our planet with tanning oil. Although, you are correct that this anthropomorphic warming era could spike the temperature enough to cause a new ice age (glaciation event), but only after a brief intense warming melts all the ice off Greenland, evaporates the lakes and seas, and stops the global ocean currents for a period.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    because it’s not scientific reality, it’s a distraction designed to sew fear and doubt, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    Here are a few of the cosmologists and physicist (and astronomers) that have made the sort of conclusive statements you require: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    Here are a few of the 97% of scientists who claim climate models are close to 100% accurate: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

  • Anonymous

    Your statement is not clear.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    You can heat your house (or cool it) passively using renewable solar thermal or solar-photovoltaic energy, or even wind-power. I ride a bike. If you need help, I offer my consultations at very reasonable prices.

  • Anonymous

    Feel free to cite the scientists names and the papers they have published.

  • Anonymous

    Really? How does that cure Neuroblastoma or Osteosarcoma?

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    Because if you ignore evil, you allow it to grow.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    I knew I should have chosen the name “Moderator”

  • Anonymous

    That’s clear. lol Nicko, you could be referring to Global Warming as dogma trumping observation.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    So, throw up your hands and give up? At what level of existence do you think is appropriate for most people to live, and who decides?

    “194319441945″ is that the number of people (x) that the earth can support? It’s more than that, the Earth is a seed, and life can exist anywhere, if it is nurtured and cultivated.

  • http://SDsustainableFuture.com SustainbleFuture

    I find that skepticism of authority is a good thing, but only if it leads one to learn at the end of the day. This RADICAL Skepticism from climate deniers is irrational and learns nothing. Many of them lack education, the rest are just liars for their pay.

  • Anonymous

    It’s sad that so many people believe that any science is ever settled. If the theory is correct it could stand debate, but debate is not tolerated by the believers. My doubts stated with the climate gate emails. It is a fact that the warmists conspired to suppress papers that did not conform to their beliefs. You can postulate all the strawman conspiracies you want and laugh at them but the acts of suppression are undeniable.
    If the subject is climate change why are the eight debunking points all supporting Global Warming? Can’t cooler climate be called “Climate Change”?

  • Anonymous

    The link you provide says, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial
    list of these organizations, along with links to their published
    statements and a selection of related resources.” There is no need for models to come to that conclusion although models would agree with it. It’s empirically based on the known radiative physics of CO2, paleoclimate, and the measured effects of other forcings that could cause the warming.

  • Anonymous

    While nature can surprise us (an ice age is unlikely because the causes of that are quite predictable) what we are doing is not nature, neither is it a surprise. I didn’t know they could predict sockeye salmon runs that reliably because the models we have are very good at projecting the changes due to CO2. Since when is scientifically reporting the verified effects of a particular component of nature “demonization”?

  • Anonymous

    You might be more effective at making a point if you knew how to calculate a “trend.” You don’t just draw a straight line from the first data point to the last. The actual trend from that graph is a warming trend. 0.07C/decade. It’s also a major cherry pick as you are finding the most convenient single data point to start from. And that is significant because you are illustrating why ocean heat content has always been important. 1998, your starting point, was a huge El Nino where some of the heat stored in the ocean to that point came back. Now even a small El Nino takes us above the1998 temperature like it did in 2010. When we get our next big El Nino, and that might be this year, you can start your new mantra, Warming stopped in 2014.

    BTW, take the GISS trend back to 1995 and it is statistically significant and warming 0.114C/decade

  • Nlpm2

    I’m just curious, what is the prize?

  • http://about.me/mikelince Mike Lince

    ‘Nature is just as likely to surprise us with another Ice Age.’ This statement could not be further from the truth. This is how the gambler talks before he goes broke before his final rolls at the craps table. As in the case with Earth science, the house almost always wins. One needs to distinguish between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’.

  • Anonymous

    Still unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable; I’ve been asking this question for years) — what is the contribution of ongoing warfare to excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide/climate change? Surely “shock-and-awe” bombing, nuclear warfare testing, and the flaming of so many dwellings worldwide has contributed as much to the situation as fossil fuel transportation.

  • Robert H. Pike

    The overriding question is “why deny”? There are several reasons for doing so.

    1. The wealthiest are best equipped to combat the perils of warming. They pay insurance on their waterfront property as a “bet”….they’re betting thousands per year that a storm WILL take out their multi-million dollar waterfront estate; so they can rebuild bigger, better, and of course, higher.

    2. The wealthiest also look at this as a “culling” because the poorest on earth are those most subject to the devastations of climate change. From the third world peasant who lives too close to a river for water, waste flushing and food to the overcrowded sea-shore dwellers in parts of the world where insurance isn’t mandatory. The poorest will suffer from droughts and famines the most as well. The rich are very happy about this; of course they’d never admit it; but to deny is to stall spending money to fix it.

    3.. Finally, there’s the “live for today” or “I’m getting mine, don’t’ care ’bout the rest” or The faith based – they believe “it’s in God’s hands”. More and more believe “end times” are near. Their goal, also, is to spend little or nothing about the issue; so to deny it is to justify this.

  • Anonymous

    Absence of birth control has many other problems in store for us, besides Climate Control. If we don’t control our birth rate, Nature will, but it won’t be pretty.

  • Anonymous

    One you have left out: If my political opponent says it’s true, I must say it’s false.

  • Anonymous

    The term “science-deniers” is pejorative and inappropriate from a moderator. You would do better to delete comments such as “Can’t fix stupid. It is to the bone.” Where is the science in that comment?

  • moderator

    Douglas,

    Just to let you know, Joshua is the author of the article not the moderator. The term “science-deniers” does not break our comment policy. Please re-read our policy before commenting again.

    Thanks
    Moderator @ Moyers

  • Anonymous

    Nice try. Actually, more of a nasty try. You are wrong in your supposition .

  • Anonymous

    You have a penchant, it would seem, for superficial theories that suit your ends. One, I presume, is CAGW. Another is your speculation about my being someone else. Both suffer from woolly thinking, feeble analysis, and goal-driven bias. I am a great admirer of Monckton’s climate work, and indeed of the man’s courage and flair. But I am not him.

  • Anonymous

    I find the WUWT site to be an informative, interesting, and often lively one. I commend it to all who read this. Go visit it a few times and see what you think. Watts himself comes across to me as a man of great integrity.

  • Anonymous

    The debate is not so much about whether AGW exists or not, but rather it is about, or ought to be about, the relative importance of our various impacts on climate. May I suggest you dip into ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’, and see for yourself some of the strong arguments and evidence for our impact on a global scale being quite weak.

  • Anonymous

    Some PROPER scientific humility that I just found:

    Part of a speech delivered by David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as part of a seminar series titled “Global Warming Denialism: What science has to say” (Special Seminar Series, Winter Quarter, 2014):

    “First, we in the scientific community need to acknowledge that the science is softer than we like to portray. The science is not “in” on climate change because we are dealing with a complex system whose full properties are, with current methods, unknowable. The science is “in” on the first steps in the analysis—historical emissions, concentrations, and brute force radiative balance—but not for the steps that actually matter for policy. Those include impacts, ease of adaptation, mitigation of emissions and such—are surrounded by error and uncertainty. I can understand why a politician says the science is settled—as Barack Obama did…in the State of the Union Address, where he said the “debate is over”—because if your mission is to create a political momentum then it helps to brand the other side as a “Flat Earth Society” (as he did last June). But in the scientific community we can’t pretend that things are more certain than they are.”

  • Anonymous

    I don’t write for Snopes :-)

  • Anonymous

    He’s pointing out what kind of insane and obviously completely untrustworthy organization is behind that crappy, fake petition.

  • Anonymous

    Source? I thought you deniers were all about how they allegedly predicted global cooling in the 70s?

  • Richard .Rowe

    And you have a penchant, it would seem, for self-congratulatory egotism expressed through the marginally judicious application of three-dollar words and masturbatory prose. Certainly, we can call it magnanimous of you, if not utterly altruistic, to address we of the lower classes with your hallowed wisdom, sans the slightest inference of sanctimonious affectation.

    Sorry…what I meant to say was “Yes, dipshit…because I wouldn’t need anything but a feeble argument to stay on M’Lord Monckton’s level of reason.” But, as his greatest self-admirer, I’m sure you know that.

  • Anonymous

    You missed the single most obvious reason – the global economy as it has developed over the last hundred years or more is dependent fossil fuels. Every new technology is a David that can slay a Goliath. The economic Goliaths are doing everything in their power to hold their position of privilege, everything from funding science to funding science denial. Eventually combusting fossil fuels will have to be abandoned, but the more capital they accumulate in the meantime, the better they’ll be able to weather that storm and even profit from it

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know- Do you believe it was a “conspiracy” when tobacco execs admitted privately that smoking and chewing tobacco causes cancer, but then hired PR professionals to publicly cast doubt on those scientific findings? Because the fossil fuel industry has now hired some of the same PR professionals to cast doubt on the science that overwhelming supports the belief that global warming is real and man made. Calling this a “conspiracy” isn’t an argument, its a smear tactic. Its just a buzz word designed to associate smart people pointing to real things with crazy people imagining fake things

  • Anonymous

    I am a skeptic (in the world of science, that’s generally a good thing), and I do tend to use science. So, I was very interested to read this article and learn from it.
    What I learned was:
    1) Temperatures have indeed stopped rising since 1998, but Bill doesn’t want to write that because it is a cherry-picked start date.
    2) Sea ice is expanding in the Antarctic, in spite of the predictions/projections to the contrary.
    3) When models don’t match reality, it’s because not enough time has transpired, but models can rule out all other causes with absolute confidence. Huh?
    4) In spite of claiming that science is not a democratic process (it isn’t), you still claim authority from a study pretending to be a democratic review of science.

    What I didn’t learn was:
    1) Why some of these psuedoscience points were chosen, as I had never heard of many of them. They may have been close to ones I had heard of, but they were changed to be easily refutable.

    I had hoped for better. I know there are better answers to the tough questions than a story about food poisoning, because refuting the “it could be primarily natural fluctuations” argument is a tough one, one that all the science and models of today struggle with. Perhaps my hopes were too high and all I really did was come across a piece designed to make it’s supporters feel good.

  • Anonymous

    And, Mr. Suzuki is not a denier of human-caused climate change despite a bumper crop of salmon.

  • Anonymous

    He’s claiming your science is actually “ideology”, sort of like the “belief” in evolution is not different from the Belief in Creationism.

  • Nicko Thime

    I know, that’s why I called it babbling.

  • cunudiun

    The article itself states, ” There’s quite a bit of scientific debate about lots of different aspects of climate change, but the question of whether humans are causing the planet to warm isn’t one of them.” What’s your problem?

  • cunudiun

    Every time I go there, I get cooties.

  • Anonymous

    Problem here is all eight of these points are either false (1,3,4,5,6, and 8) or spin (2 and 7). Nice try though at lying to the public, bonus points for further undermining real science.

  • Anonymous

    I cannot find any evidence that any climate scientists made that claim. Can you supply a source?

  • Jnash

    What are your sources that challenge these points? Do you even have any? Just because YOU say they’re false, we should take your word for it?

  • Asaangel

    Deny what is right before everyone’s eyes.

  • bodieq66

    What people like you need to do is to GO to where the science is done and FIND OUT where the flaw is. All the scientists have “peer reviewed” themselves. Do the same reviewing that they did. Go through the same reasoning that they did. Find their flaw. Only then should people start listening to you. Conversely, the scientific process that reaches these conclusions should be very transparent. Exceedingly transparent. And it is. Look it up and start understanding it instead of spitting at it.

  • charles

    ice age co2 +4000 ppm

  • Webster

    This post would be a lot more credible if it would stick to scientific arguments, and dispense with the ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies.

  • Anonymous

    If you knew who Art Robinson is you’d know the author was being kind.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, not only did I read it all, but I have a much better understanding of it than the ‘context’ the expert tried to put on it.
    Unlike the North Pole, southern sea ice is anchored to a fixed central spot. While it expands and contracts both from freeze/thaw cycles and from wind-driven compression/expansion, this has been the same for the entire satellite record (how we measure sea ice). To dismiss expanding sea ice as irrelevant b/c it is driven by wind, while ignoring the greater affect of wind on northern sea ice, is intellectually dishonest (probably that one is not on the scientist, but the author of the piece).
    The wind has been driving the sea ice around for the last few million years, including all of the satellite record. Why is the total cover of southern sea ice increasing now? Why do the computer models predict/project otherwise? Does an after-the-event explanation undo the incorrect prediction/projection and stop me from questioning the logic that went into the failed prediction/projection?
    These are questions we all should be asking often.

  • cunudiun

    Because of the rate of warming and that it is occurring at the lower but not the upper atmosphere and lots of other carefully measured things that have meaning to scientists but not to the uninformed, and the fact that CO2 has always caused warming — in fact this planet would probably be too cold to support human life without it — etc. etc. etc.

  • cunudiun

    So who should I believe, NASA or you?

  • Anonymous

    Scientists/Geologists know what caused every major global catastrophe going back tens of thousands of years by studying fossil records, the content of ice masses and glaciers as well as simple examination of the content of exposed earth layers. None of those factors are in play today. None.

  • Anonymous

    So all of our fire safety codes, electrical codes, every study that determined the harmful effects of chemical exposures in the workplace, the discoveries that make the periodic table, jet propulsion etc etc etc should be totally disregarded as fraud because the scientist got a paycheck or received funding. LMAO what a buffoon.

  • Anonymous

    Source please??? What’s changed since the 1970′s? Computers!!! The amount of computing power to process global climate models is HUGE! We’ve only been able to utilize that type of computing power in the last 20 years. Go back 30-40yrs and we’re talking guesses. Computers have changed science dramatically. The 1970′s references are silly because of that.

  • Anonymous

    The OISM consists mostly of engineers and medical doctors etc… Of the 30,000 signers only 40 or so are actual scientists and I don’t think one climate scientist but I could be wrong.

  • Anonymous

    BTW how do you know the world isn’t actually flat? Have you personally been out of our atmosphere and confirmed it? Maybe all the images we see are a giant hoax perpetrated by the “powers that be” just like the lunar landings. That was done on a sound stage of course. Or perhaps is there science you choose to trust and then not trust other science for no rational reason whatsoever other than the the fact you don’t like the political or economic solutions that would have to be implemented as a result if the science???

  • Anonymous

    Neither.
    The beauty of it is that you can check it out yourself, research it on your own, and determine what you think without relying on the authority of one person or another. That’s science.
    And, in this case, NASA did not say what you think they did. Unless you think that Trenberth said something that is not attributed to him. He only made a distinction between sea ice and land ice, not a value judgement or prediction. The rest was the author.

  • Jeffrey Murray

    I think your focus on Antarctica is analogous to my neighbor telling me it was colder this year than last in our city. Hardly a refutation of climate change theory.

    Personally having questions about the implications of the model is not the same thing as having evidence of its invalidity.

    Predictions or projections about secondary effects of climate change (sea rise, precipitation, etc) are vastly more complicated (and thus prone to error) than the question of whether the earth, as a whole, is warming, and whether we are contributing a significant amount to that trend by our CO2 output.

    So, I ask you, SO WHAT? We don’t measure the earth’s temperature by calculating the volume of Antarctic sea ice. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

  • Jimbo913

    Ugh, deniers can even deny this? Listen up all, we can debate all day long about what we are going to do about it. We can debate about whether the government can effectively mitigate it. We can debate if carbon credits actually solves anything. We can debate who stands to profit most. We can debate what the role of the US is given actions of other nations. We can do all of that, but to deny that something is even going on in the first place is infuriatingly ignorant. We need to get on the same page, the stakes have never been higher.

  • Jimbo913

    From someone with a bible as an avatar, you know what the function of the church is right? Hint: they pass around the tray every weekend.

  • Jimbo913

    Keep on deflecting until you are blue in the face, but it won’t change the facts. Not sure why you mention genetics, but I assume it just indicates that you have zero idea what you are talking about. Kind of like most deniers.

  • cunudiun

    I already have checked it out and I know who to believe and it’s not you.

  • Webster

    Uh, you don’t know where I stand on the issue. I was commenting on the manner in which the refutations were made. My criticisms apply whether I accept anthropogenic climate change or not. I would like to see discussion carried out by use of valid arguments and sound methodologies, without resort to fallacies on either side.

    My point is that by liberal application of fallacies, the author may encourage the faithful and confound the ignorant, but thoughtful readers are left wondering why the need to blow so much smoke. If he had just stuck to the facts and solid argumentation, there wouldn’t be any cause for those of us who like to think for ourselves to say, “Why throw all that junk in there? What is he trying to hide?” In other words, he damaged his own credibility, QED.

    NB: I didn’t mention genetics, I said the author used the “genetic fallacy”. Since I did know what I was talking about, but you don’t, here’s more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

    So, if you’re right that I am “like most deniers” and you are among the convinced, then you just admitted that deniers have a better grasp of logic than the convinced, didn’t you? But you’ve only assumed that I am, and we’ve seen how accurate you are at assuming.

  • FutureShock999

    It has already been answered that 1) sea ice is relatively UNIMPORTANT, because it the growth or lessening of it does not affect sea levels that much (as it is already displacing other water), and 2) the melting land ice is contributing to the formation of more sea ice, as the melted ice has fewer kcal of energy per litre than the Southern Ocean on average.

    Where there any other questions I may straighten out for you?

  • Jimbo913

    Not sure why I can’t reply to your post below, so I will do it here. Okay, you got me on the genetic fallacy. I had never heard of that particular articulation, though I am aware of the fallacy of origins.

    I see that you are one of those deniers that is going to take the philosophical lawyer approach, and throw in a couple of Latin abbreviations to make it seem like you know more than you actually do. What you say below is still a deflection. You take issue with the article, but it seems you don’t consider the source material.

    The article is spot on in what I tend to see on every CNN post regarding CC. I can’t begin to tell you how often “but the earth hasn’t warmed in 15 years” comes up in a given post. The article is correct to point out why this argument is false. Criticize the author all you want, but at the end of the day his version of reality is much closer than you give him credit for.

  • Sai Das

    Not to mention the fact that priests, ministers and pastors of his Holy Bible crew are all paid staff so what they say about God is just as suspect.

  • Matthew Sutherland

    I’d love to see an article here regarding the options we have for escaping the planet earth. What it might take in terms of resources and time. Just ballpark.

  • Anonymous

    Ok,I specificly said 12,000 years ago & you said they know EXACTLY what caused every event,So what cause it? Where’s the answer?
    Did the sun get hotter?are we further away from it? What is it exactly? That’s the problem. They don’t know the answer.

  • Nick Taxidermy

    AWWW SNAP

  • Fixed Sight Training

    So what temperature is the planet “supposed” to be and how much government and taxes do we need to force it to stay there?

  • CB

    Nobody believes science is settled.

    That’s pretend.

    It has been established scientific fact for over 100 years that CO₂ warms planets. If you think it doesn’t, why is Venus 300 degrees hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun? What besides a blanket of CO₂ is making Venus so hot?

    If you were actually interested in challenging science, why don’t you have an explanation for observed phenomena?

  • Anomy

    .
    Just as much as needed,
    no more
    no less

    .

  • Anonymous

    You need to update you information. Sun was weaker as it slowly becomes warmer over time. Given it’s strength at the time you are talking about CO2 only had to dip below 3000 ppm for glaciation to begin. Young 2009 showed CO2 levels dropped below that level and that’s why there was glaciation at the time. The more we look the more we find paleo-climate tells us CO2 is the key to climate change through out Earth’s climate history..

  • la romita

    We are on the same side, but lets not pitch data to fit causes. Inaccurate statements like: “Even if the SUN, which has a stable output measurable across hundreds of
    thousands of years thanks to ice-core data (AHEM), went into a huge dip in
    output, the effects on our planet should be small, as most of our heat
    comes from geothermal energy (up from the ground, not out of the sky)” ….detract from the efforts of our global data gathering efforts to find our best path. Kindly do some research into recorded solar output changes such as the Maunder minimum, and for some empirical evidence go sit in the full noon summer sun, and then in the total shade, and then tell us solar output is not a significant factor.

  • Dax McClain

    I’m not disputing that the document was bogus. I’m simply asking the writer to keep arguments logical.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t challenge science, I challenge those who are anti-science when they say the issue is settled.

    Obama says the science is settled. No one in his administration is allowed to doubt it.

    BTW – The adiabatic lapse rate makes Venus hot.
    (http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/hyperventilating-on-venus.html)

    CO2 contributes to heating on earth but the effect is logarithmic whereas the IPCC models assume amplification of the effect – virtually exponential with concentration.

  • Anonymous

    Science can answer your question, and that effect is insignificant.

    The effect of adding up to 35 billion tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere each year for the last couple of centuries is causing the planet to trap heat and gain energy at a rate 250 terajoules per second (250TW).
    That is 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per *day*.
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081648

    This is thousands of times more than what all humans produce from all sources.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, there are plenty. Here are 3 related ones:
    1) Since sea ice is so unimportant, why does North Pole sea ice get so much research and headlines? I know sea ice is inconsequential to sea level (you are correct that ice displaces it’s own weight exactly, so doesn’t change the total level). But I read lots about how losing North Pole ice is so bad. It seems to be really bad when it is shrinking but unimportant when it is growing.
    2) If both you and the author are correct about increased sea ice, why do the GCMs predict less Antarctic sea ice? I know their models did not predict this happening. Shouldn’t the ‘not idiot’ scientists have picked up on that before it happened?
    3) Why has the rate of annual seal level rise dropped this century? Shouldn’t it be increasing as we warm the ocean faster (warm water takes up more volume) and as we melt land ice faster? It peaked ~10-15 years ago, but has now dropped back to the average rate for the last millennium. Why?

  • Anonymous

    Al Gore believes the science is settled. Many others do as well.
    That’s not pretend (I watched his docu-drama).

  • Anonymous

    I’ve read a lot of the pages at Skeptical Science, as well as many other consensus and skeptical sites. While Skeptical Science is not the lowest intellect of them, it is on the lower end. It uses the Noble Lie to try to convince people of what they ‘should’ believe, not what is true. It NEVER accepts that there may be a reason to doubt (there are plenty), nor that any contrary evidence is important. Good science should recognize issues that are unsolved and be open about them. Bad science ignores them and tries to cover with bluster.
    You can do a lot better with suggested sites.

  • Anonymous

    Also, calling someone a science-denier because they do not accept your science, without engaging them is either juvenile or intellectually dishonest. There are lots of forms of denial. Rationally questioning science is not one of them.
    (Yes, there are lots who irrationally question science, and also many who blindly accept science. Both are dangerous. But your blanket statement shows your inherent bias.)

  • WCS

    This doesn’t address historical climate swings. Doesn’t anyone read history?

  • WCS

    There have been huge climate changes, which forced the migration of entire populations. Yet this is new,…..? The Freon scare was about dupont’s patent on freon running out. It turns out that all the freon made by man is only 1/10 of 1% of the hydrofluerocarbons made by the ocean naturally. Durn those annoying fact. And yes I am a scientist and engineer. By the way, it would be helpful to understand that volcanos output thousands of times man’s CO2 contribution. It is silly to think man can effect the climate when you really look at the facts.

  • CB

    So what? Why do you care so very much what Al Gore thinks?

    If you think the science is not settled, what besides CO₂ is making Venus 300 degrees hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun?

    Did you notice when I asked that question before?

  • CB

    “I don’t challenge science”

    No, you don’t, do you? You just pretend it doesn’t exist…

    Define “adiabatic lapse rate”.

    If an “adiabatic lapse rate” is warming Venus, and not CO₂, isn’t that something you should be able to do?

  • David Graham

    Also a comedian.. You need to so some more study.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    You move then.
    I say that to claim to know aggregate content of ocean thermal energy is errant and obvious b.s. How could you even hope to measure something like that even now, let alone calculate it – especially in the past ? Nor is there any way to confirm future conditions.
    BTW What part of the ‘climate model’ even makes sense ? One does not say you are going to prove an assumption come what may – and expect to be taken seriously. We have a rotating ellipsoid on a non-spherical orbit which is heated by internal radiation and cooled by evaporation : just try to factor processes and dynamics which are not even known, let alone measured and calculated. The business of water changing state and varying reflectivity is a serious crimp in any alleged measuring of thermal gain – which is diagrammed as occurring at the bottom when heat always rises !
    Disputing Spencer takes special nerve : he is the go-to guy for measurement of temperature from space. There is no other way to find surface temperatures on water – which covers most of the planet.

  • Jimbo913

    You should take that brilliant piece of insight and publish it. Certainly if you can’t understand it, it can’t be true.

  • Anonymous

    No, science is a form of comptetition. You probably like competition, right? If one scientist publishes the results of an experiment, it’s every other scientist’s job to disprove it. If they can’t, the results stand. The more they are reproduced, the more widely accepted the results are. It doesn’t matter who funds what; it’s a world-wide, intergenerational enterprise that transcends both place and time. In fact, it is the most perfect competition, and it is ongoing, and it is the only reliable source of truth that has ever been devised by humankind.

  • Anonymous

    And what exactly does the money of the Koch brothers do / buy / control?

  • Anonymous

    Yep, there are people who ask questions, design experiments, publish the results, and then subject them to the scrutiny of thousands of other scientists who are trying to prove him wrong. And then… there are people who ask questions in online forums to hear themselve talk, and spread misinformation, and who could not care less about the answers. Two very different kinds of questions, and two very different kinds of questioners.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    There is a difference between understanding something and accepting that somebody else does : especially when they cannot explain how they do. Otherwise we have come to the question “Do you believe in global warming ?” Actually, I do. Just not as it is proposed to have occurred via a process linked to energy consumption. That puts it 2 courts : faith and energy politics – the first where b.s. proliferates and the second where all means – fair or foul – are used to achieve objectives.
    It is so much easier to lie one’s way to victory. That knife cuts both ways. And it sure doesn’t mean proponents are innocent of guile.

  • Anonymous

    “yes I am a scientist and engineer.” LOL, I wouldn’t hire you then because even a non-scientist can easily show you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

    Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year. (American Geological Survey)

    The CFCs in the ocean are man made and have been absorbed from the atmosphere. (Plummer LN and Busenberg E. 2006. “Chlorofluorocarbons in aquatic environments” (chapter 1), p. 1-8. In IAEA (ed.), Use of chlorofluorocarbons in hydrology – A guidebook: Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency.)

  • Anonymous

    The article in one word…. zero.

  • Anonymous

    “One does not say you are going to prove an assumption come what may – and expect to be taken seriously.”
    Of course not, that’s why climate scientists have never taken that approach. Oddly enough that is what the deniers do and you seem to take them seriously. One of those people is Roy Spencer, who you say is a go to guy. You do know he signed a declaration saying God made the planet with natural defences so we can’t mess it up for ourselves? He’s spent a good part of his scientific life trying to prove this but with no luck, yet he continues to be sure it’s true.

    Spencer is also the guy whose satellite data was diverging from the surface records back in the 90s. When others tried to point out there might be issues with his data he refused to believe it. Finally after a long period he was presented with irrefutable evidence and he had to admit there was orbital decay issues. Turned out the surface record was more accurate. There are still lots of issues with satellite measurement of temps. For one it’s influenced to a much greater extent by ENSO events.

    And yes while there are challenges your argument is essentially a logical fallacy, argumentum ad incredulum. You can’t see how, with all those other issues, it could be possible so it must not be. And yet for those in the field it’s not controversial. Not without issue but without controversy. They have proxies and other systems of data collection that have produced a series of robust studies on ocean heat content down to 2000m. Your claim that it is bs is simply your own feeling, nothing more, and quite frankly your opinion is of no more interest in this case than mine. If it is wrong prove it is by writing the paper or at least find a paper that says there are too many errors in the papers that exist to find their results robust.

    You say listening to experts in a field is a sign that a person doesn’t understand something, however your whole point is based on the idea you don’t understand. Now that’s either deeply ironic or a demonstration of your own arrogance. Could well be because you haven’t read the literature and if you haven’t you haven’t understood it.

    Looks to me like your beliefs are based on faith and energy politics.

  • Anonymous

    First, how about some evidence of that? And then you might want to explain why fossil fuel production isn’t? Some people will just say anything.

  • Anonymous

    The end of the last ice age dates back about 15,000 years. It began with due to variations in Milankovitch cycles (as all ice ages). These are orbital variations that cause the sun to absorb more solar energy nearer the poles. This causes the polar ice caps to melt and then the oceans to warm a bit. However these cycles can’t warm the planet as much as we know it did. What happens after that early warming is, as the oceans warmed, they couldn’t hold as much CO2 (and other gases). The CO2 then enhanced the greenhouse effect and caused most of the warming over the warming period. This peaked about 6-8000 years ago in the Holocene Climactic Optimum. After that Milankovitch cycles have cooled the earth at a very slow rate. There have been some lumps and bumps along the way but the overall trend was down. Then about 1850 the climate began a small uptick due to reduced volcanic eruption, solar output increases and human emitted CO2. Those other forcings played a role but the big one overall has been the human emitted CO2. It is responsible for a significant majority of the warming over the last century and probably all of it since 1950.

    This is all available from reliable scientific sites. You should try and see what scientists actually say before you throw a hissy fit acting like big questions that are well answered haven’t been.

  • Anonymous

    I think you are a pseudo-skeptic because you don’t seem to have really looked at the full body of evidence.

    1) Temps have warmed since 1998. All the surface temp records show a positive trend since 1998. The two warmest years 2005 and 2010 both occurred since 1998. Cowtan and Way have shown that the slow down for surface temps is much less of a slow down than thought. Also did you notice that 1998 was a massive El Nino? That does have an effect. But now even a small El Nino 2010 or even La Nina years, are very close to record highs. Final point, in case you don’t realize, the oceans are part of the globe and they have continued to warm. You’re dealing in cherry picking and spin.

    2) Sea Ice is expanding and yes this has taught us a few things. But what we learn tells us this is an effect of a couple of anthropogenic things. The CFC induced ozone layer “hole” has changed the winds around the antarctic which breaks up the ice and spreads it and then the small cracks freeze. Also AGW is causing increased precipitation and melting which is freshening the surface water which act as a thermal barrier to the warmer southern ocean water that would otherwise cause melting. Also models did’t show antarctic sea ice to begin shrinking until mid century.

    3) Models don’t model all things and since what they model are long term effects we do need to give them longer periods to test them. However Frame and Stone (2012) Rahmstorf et al (2012) and Kosaka and Xie (2013) all show the models are actually performing very well.

    At the same time models don’t rule out other factors, they also don’t prove CO2, empirical evidence and basic physics does that. The sun simply doesn’t vary enough (even on it’s recent long term maximum in 1960) to cause the changes. The other possible sources of all the additional energy are not supported by data. So the other factors rule themselves out.

    4) Cook et al is not an argument saying democracy rules. AGW is not true because 97% of the papers accept it however it does tell us that despite what denialists tell us that the vast majority of papers and scientists are in agreement with AGW. Since this is a big change from where things were 40 years ago it is a statement about the strength of the evidence. The evidence has created nearly unanimous agreement. It also tells us that those who claim there are other reasons have not produced the kind of evidence that has convinced other scientists. In fact given that the 3% are mostly older types and are very familiar to those who follow this issue closely it becomes obvious they are the last hold outs rather than the new kids with the new revelation.

    Your other #1: If the 8 in the article are unfamiliar to you then I suggest you look at the rest of the comments below. You will see these in spades. They are also arguments I see all the time as I patrol the Internet. As it says in the article, if you think there are others that should be here then I’d suggest you go to Skeptical Science. They have 168 other myth examinations available there.

  • Anonymous

    The logic in that statement is idiotic let alone the science. If you had glaciation sea level goes down due to ocean water being frozen in massive ice caps. How could it possibly lead to flooding? Also ice ages occur over thousands of years. You don’t get 30 year from now kinds of projections.
    In the 60s and 70s there was some debate about whether warming influences or cooling would prevail. There was no absolute conclusion and thus no pronouncements as fact. Over the 60s and 70s a significant majority of papers said warming would win out. That’s the fact.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    Can I spit at ‘peer review’ as well? I do not need to poll the acolytes subscribing to a set of tenets to establish the truth of their contentions. That is the job of scientific method – which is based on disputation and discussion…not ‘consensus.’

  • Anonymous

    Have you studied the findings in ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’? They help deal with the misinformation being spread by climate alarm campaigners.

  • Anonymous

    I would similarly encourage anyone to study the ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II’ reports, where you will find more substance to address the crazy claims of those behind the so-called Skeptical site.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    The overriding question is “why deny”? ….
    It may be your overriding question. It is a way to use false argument : state others’ positions for them and ‘rebut’ their mis-stated positions. Grist did a wonderful job of making a list of ‘Talking Points’ rebutting arguments in advance of their proposal. That is merely strategy taking place of real proof : if you cannot prove something, insist others disprove it. Yet one cannot deal with projections as more than exercises in mathematics with no provable application to the real world. The idea of ‘projecting’ the past is only an example of silliness proving zip.

    Rather than ‘deny’ I simply want proof of concept. Yet the IPCC has failed to find a usable model even for calculation when basing their assumptions on the actions of a trace gas.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    If the price goes up due to tax – disproportionate economic valuation of labour will be even more distorted and cause hardship including death on those without means to afford energy because of international economic games. Mind, internal economic disparity in ‘the West’ will cause domestic loss of life as well.
    So how is taxing fossil fuels progressive ? All I see is a scheme to monopolize an essential component of an industrialized society, analogous to the suffering caused to proponents of nuclear disarmament by nuclear armed nations and their refusal to honour their I.O.U.’s payable to those subscribing the protocols accepted by 140 nations designed to demonstrate peaceful use of nuclear technology ( the NPT TRAP ) via economic sanctions : which kill women and children.

  • Winston Niles Rumford

    The first graph posted covers 134 years of temperature records. This is the data set that man-made global is based on.

    That data set is a mere splinter of the hundreds of millions of years for which we have proxy temperature data. I hardly think that 134 years has any statistical significance when compared to that vast expanse of time.

  • charles

    try my above post….Modis and look Piers Corbyn up
    and if ya read the 97 percent paper about it it was a far cry from what the headlines imply~ but probably no one read it///

  • charles

    That one story…there are others…try electric universe2014.

    This shows co2 saturation http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MODIS_ATM_solar_irradiance.jpg

    correct me if i get my number wrong. AFW adds 30 billion tons, plants use 7 trillion tons which means nature has to add at least 7 trillion ton annually….

    next if we burn fossil fuels co2 would increase anyway as the planet warms by release from the oceans….

    some say debate about carbon trading is moot. well then why dont those people send their dollars to me as I can waste em as well as the Governments////

  • Anonymous

    Nice graph. However it doesn’t show saturation. The idea of saturation is an old idea. There is still lots of room to increase the GHE of CO2. Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007 all measured a decrease IR wavelengths effected by CO2 escaping at the top of the atmosphere. Philipona 2004 and Evans 2006 have measured increased IR at CO2 wavelengths be reradiated down. If it was saturated this couldn’t happen.

    Yes, plants (also the earth’s land surface and oceans too) emit far more CO2 than we do. But they also absorb that CO2. Ever since we have been measuring CO2 content directly (since 1958) the increase in CO2 has roughly equaled 50% of our emissions. So basically the earth emits CO2 but also absorbs all that CO2 and about half of ours. If we didn’t emit there would be no increase in CO2.

    Good question. So why don’t the oceans emit more CO2 if they are warmer? After all they did during the end of the ice ages. It’s because of our emissions and something called Henry’s Law. The warming oceans would emit CO2 if the warming was not from added CO2. By adding CO2 to the atmosphere we increase the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, this increases the amount of CO2 the ocean can hold. because the CO2 in the atmosphere is pushed in to replace it whenever some leaves the ocean. During the end of the ice ages there was no infusion of atmosphere from a non-ocean source to have the same effect.

    Carbon trading is one possible policy reaction. I like aspects of it and think it could be used in conjunction with a carbon tax. Of course policy to solve a problem is always debatable however not liking a particular policy is poor excuse for denying the problem exists.

  • Anonymous

    “That is the job of scientific method – which is based on disputation and discussion…”
    Absolutely, and that’s why there is a consensus. Ideas were floated, evidence gathered, conclusions were debated, more data was gathered, more papers, more debate, and independently the members of climate science community came to their own conclusion.

    The papers on this topic have been done to test the denier claim that there is no consensus and that there is still debate over even the basics of AGW. (as per the myth above) They do quite a good job of demonstrating the deniers are wrong. If the deniers don’t like the concept maybe they should have tried to win the scientific debate on the topic rather than go political with a clearly incorrect talking point.

  • Anonymous

    What is right before my eyes are contrails.

  • Anonymous

    Where anyone is dying because they can’t afford the necessities of life, we should provide them directly with what they need to live. Subsidizing fossil fuels (what we really do in the US) is just a stupid stupid way to try to keep people alive. Fossil fuels are killing us- extreme weather events are more frequent and severe as the planet warms. Eventually changing weather patterns and increasing temperatures will cause crop failures, which obviously could leave alot of people without the necessities of life. There are other viable energy options – Germany for instance now relies on renewables for about 25% of their electricity. We need energy to maintain our standard of living in the west, but it doesn’t have to come from fossil fuels, and we won’t actually die if we have to maybe cut the engine while we run into the 7-11

  • Guest

    EXACTLY! Every day we
    see them and yet the denial persists! Denial of Chemtrails is human
    consciousness failure.

  • Asaangel

    Every day we
    see Chemtrails and yet the denial persists! Denial of Chemtrails is human
    consciousness failure.

  • Tim Taylor

    Wayne is right in the spirit of his argument. Not all science has been destroyed but so much of it has. The comments about a form of competition are wrong in the case of AGW. These theories and models have not been peer reviewed. In fact, there is recent evidence that has been published of how the AGW fanatics subverted the peer review process. There is a large dissenting view on the politicization of science and climate. And that dissenting view is held by scientists who are apolitical and not affiliated with Republican fanatics.

    If one appreciates that science can’t even account for 96% of the universe, then one appreciates that discovery and truth is an iterative process. As more is understood, a greater degree of truth unfolds. Yet incontrovertible truth is never achieved. When was the last time you aced a test with only 4% of the information covered on it?

    Every single ice core sample over the last half a million years shows CO2 lagging temperature. ie, CO2 is a dependent variable and is not the cause of our planet’s warming cycles. That we see some potential change in temperature and variations in climate over a 100 year cycle and conclude that we appreciate all factors in what is happening is the most absurd, anti-science propaganda over modern times. It clearly is driven by the ego’s intent of control rather than the search for truth.

    The Max Planck Institute in Germany has the data that shows the sun is more active since 1940 than any time in the last 8,000 years. That’s exactly consistent with this short warming cycle. Yet, the sun’s activity has collapsed the last decade and so has the trend towards greater warming. The Russian Academy of Sciences and Japan’s Hinode Space Program have both remarked that global warming is likely over and we are probably headed for a substantial cooling of the planet for some extended period of time. These are some of the most brilliant scientists on earth. Even NASA has a major astrophystics research paper that is inconsistent with the climatology science of another part of NASA. It is on the National Academy of Sciences web site and clearly concludes without any equivocation that the sun is the major contributor to climate cycles. I have linked to that research on here before. People completely under appreciate the massive forces of the universe in comparison to humanity. The sun is a million times the size of the earth. The sun is gazillions of times more impactful than the small mass of humanity on the earth. And, what else do we not know because our knowledge of perceptions of reality are so minute and we are so ignorant comparatively.

    Anyone who tells me the climate issue is settled is a religious ideologue defending their faith. When anyone on here can account for the missing 96% of the universe and the impact it has on climate and our perceptions of reality, I’ll listen intently. But, until then, this is more of what Eisenhower warned us about.

    Eisenhower’s famous military industrial complex speech had large talking points about university science being destroyed by the government and private interests. That science as we knew it was dead in 1961. Those were his words. And that the possible manipulation and misuse of university research and science by special interests was a major threat. It’s the same type of threat at the Koch Brothers but it often instead is wrapped in the Democratic Party flag waving. In fact, University in Chains, a recent expose of the Eisenhower speech and the corruption of science, has been highlighted on Moyers. Yet, somehow it has nothing to do with AGW.

  • Anonymous

    Good rundown. The deniers are getting more and more angsty, so having these at the ready is quite useful.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    I suggest you check the NOAA records. They show no increase in storm severity – rather the converse has occurred. I like what the Dutch did with urban transportation ( bicycles ) – but it may not just be energy conservation that should motivate us to emulate them.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    The worst devastation of environment is war. At that point other concerns start to seem less significant. However – killing population does reduce demand. It’s just a very, very poor way to ‘protect’ the ecosystem. And…prosperity drops birth rates. Go figure.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “test the denier claim that there is no consensus ”

    “members of climate science community came to their own conclusion.”

    I believe we agree…but come to different estimates of the situation. One red flag comes with the discrediting of the only group tasked with predicting future conditions. It is a sign that the concept is ‘out to lunch.’ And it highlights the pressures perverting dialogue.

    Meteorologists as Climate Change Deniers?
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/meteorologists-as-climate-change-deniers.htm

    Who do you trust ? 49 former NASA Scientists dispute claims of global warming!! http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1833051/pg1

  • Nicko Thime

    Denialists are all the same.

  • charles

    Spencer , I nott follow up because I dont know what specific work he has done. His name just comes up everywhere, I could careless. Corbyn has made his prediction we are going to cool till 2032 or 2035… we will see.

    Principa, is just where the emissivity expreiment was put up made by the guy in Mexico, I found it by looking for Emissivity experiments….The PDF, John Eggert P. Eng., does a similiar test and gets similar results saying co2 is about saturated he does show the AR5 table which is way diff and reccomends we can go try to figure out what AR^(they) are doing. He gets nothing like that…I going with the tests.

    I am think maybe I can get local high school and maybe CSUB to help set up our own emissivity experiment…With some students is my plan~!

    I never seen real experiments given to public from IPCC or their press or media outlets…Nothing buy double talk that spend eight paragraphs saying something that could be said In one paragraph….

    Consenus, I look for it again. 36 or something per is wgere the 97 percent comes from…Yjey start with over 10,000 papers but the 97 percent is I forgat exactly 700 to 1300 papers…IT’s a frecking joke of a bunch patting each other on the back! The Earth was Flat until someone came up with a better idea and then later someone proved it…

    Still the basic math on co2 says no…And the Day the AGW crowd stands up and say the Math proves we are right; I’l not jump on hook,line,sinker with the rest if you!l

  • Anonymous

    We don’t see chemtrails, we see contrails.

  • Anonymous

    Belief in chemtrails is based on blind faith

  • Anonymous

    First you say you cite a scientist because he’s all over the place (The reason he is is because he’s one of the few climate scientists can actually cite. Of course he hasn’t published a successful paper in a few years.) and then you say:

    “Principa, is just where the emissivity expreiment was put up made by the guy in Mexico. I found it by looking for Emissivity experiments….The PDF, John Eggert P. Eng.,”

    Yes, it’s just some website that a guy put up……so you treat it like a valid science website that is equivalent to say Nature? Here’a a question, why didn’t John Eggert publish in a climate or atmospheric journal? Why would a paper that conclusively demonstrated that AGW was not a concern not get published?

    And John’s climate qualifications are? He seems to be unaware of atmospheric physics and this basic fact described by Gilbert Plass in 1956:
    “One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.”

    “36% or something per is where the 97 percent comes from”

    LOL, you do a search on a science paper under the proper terms and you get a lot of titles. Now given that the accepted view is that AGW is true (all serious reviews of science, 18 National Academies, numerous scientific organizations (none against)) why would everyone take a stance? Most don’t. However in papers where the abstract do take a position 97% support man as the main cause of the current warming. The authors self rating section had even higher agreement. All of that was clearly in the methods and announcements of the paper. Now once again considering refuting AGW would be big news don’t you think those who do would announce it? Last year, of over 13,000 papers on the topic 1 (with one author) refuted AGW.

    The math does show global warming is right. How have you missed this? AGW is basic physics.

    However back to that paper you conclude with here’s a problem with his math. He concludes: “That is: Above 200 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 there is no increase in the greenhouse affect due to CO2, and changes to human emissions of CO2 will have no affect on climate.” Trouble for him is a variety of papers have measured the increased GHE due to CO2 since 1979. Which means we can measure the effect caused by the climb from 340 ppm until now. Whatever John is doing, he’s doing it wrong. Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007 measure CO2 effects at the top of the atmosphere and Wang 2009, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006 measure it from the ground.

  • Anonymous

    Meteorologist don’t make climate predictions they make weather predictions. Of the group in that survey only 13% listed themselves as having expertise in climate. Of that group 93% accepted AGW as the main driver of recent climate change. So even that supposed red flag turns out to support the consensus. Sounds a lot like Andernegg’s survey that also found 97% of climate scientists agreed with AGW. He found that the more work a person did in the field the stronger their acceptance of the consensus view.

    The 49 NASA scientist meme is an appeal to a false authority. None of them are climate scientists. In fact most of them were administrators. (23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climatescience)) Not a single hour of climate science research between them. You might as well claim 49 dentists have said they think open heart surgery is not effective. BTW, there are currently 18000 people working at NASA. 49 retiriees isn’t that impressive. Way less than even 1% of even current employees. James Hansen is a former NASA employee and he’s actually done work in the field of climate research. I believe him a lot more.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    When somebody tells me climate is not weather I smile – because neither is a scientific term but rather a source of contention. And when you complain none are ‘climate scientists’ ( though I think Roger Pielke Sr. has likely done enough elucidating the situation to point out the inanity of claiming knowledge one does not have ) it merely sidesteps the question of whether there is a} climate science and b} a usable and proven ‘forcing’ related to co2 levels. So it falls upon a person to see if the complaints of the alleged ‘deniers’ are less or more based on science than the allegations of science so abstract it cannot be followed outside the narrow corridors of the high priests of warming alarm.
    Unsurprisingly, there is more reason to think that we are not able to choose to change ‘climate’ except in ways that cause drought or perhaps through geoengineering.
    As for Hansen : there is a big difference between following the lead of one man rather than the usual exploration and curiosity about the universe which sparks discovery…and what happened to the hordes of experts all declaiming horrors awaiting us all ?

  • charles

    I Not addressing all you stated because my sight cant keep up. I am blind and i havent a reader.Could explain but…Any way the emissivity as i stated to someone or you. Several years ago realclimate(pre 2007) started in with all those extra detail in band lines. Well I just bet that Modis (graph)reads all of em…

    On the science here’s your guys; I refreshed on today but my eye quit me so it be brief. Like I said they repeat theirselves endlessly(the AGW crew).: “Determining Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity is a major objective of the current climate research, through climate model studies, and empirical approaches through consideration of changes in global temperature and forcing over time during the period of instrumental temperature measurements or from differences in forcing and temperature between the present climate and various paleo climate states, as reviewed by Knutti and Hegerl (2008).

    The empirical approach using instrumental temperature data together with estimates of radiative forcing over a specific time period (Gregory et al., 2002; Forster et al., 2007; —Wayne, notice empirical(observbed)(estimates) I tell that is fiction Watne where is the test experiment?—

    Schwartz, 2012; Otto et al., 2013) yields substantial uncertainty in inferred climate sensitivity primarily because of large uncertainty in forcing, mainly forcing by tropospheric aerosols. Similarly, because of uncertainties in both the forcing and the change in global temperature between the holocene and prior climatic states such as the last glacial maximum, Wayne there model didnt work! Wayne I’ll take Hottel and Lectner(sp) and several others whom actually did test-experiments. above from here: http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/view/21533/htmland there is much more.

    Well since I havent looked up spencer. I did find lindzen http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/ http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
    And no I have not read but just a clip or two same reason eye.

    “*1. Virtually by definition, nothing in science is ‘incontrovertible’ – especially in a primitive and complex field as climate. “*

    *”** ‘Global Warming’ refers to an obscure statistical quantity, globally averaged temperature anomaly, the small residue of far larger and mostly uncorrelated local anomalies. “*

    *”**As noted, the value of ‘authority’ in a primitive and politicized field like climate is of dubious value – it is essential to deal with the science itself.”*

    *”**The climate system is never in equilibrium because, among other things, the ocean transports heat between the surface and the depths. To be sure, however, there are other sources of internal variability as well.”*

    *”*

    - *Changes are small (order of several tenths of a degree)*
    - *Changes are not causal but rather the residue of regional changes.* – *Changes of the order of several tenths of a degree are always present at virtually all time scales.*
    - *Obsessing on the details of this record is more akin to a spectator sport (or tea leaf reading) than a serious contributor to scientific efforts – at least so far.”*

    *”**However, my personal hope is that we will return to normative science, and try to understand how the climate actually behaves. Our present approach of dealing with climate as completely specified by a single number, globally averaged surface temperature anomaly, that is forced by another single number, atmospheric CO2 levels, for example, clearly limits real understanding; so does the replacement of theory by model simulation.”*
    *”**Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.*

    *In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedentedclimate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.”*

    *I will call that his opinion…Anyway I wonder if I can do our own Emissivity expetiment…Wayne had the IPCC put forth experiments showing proof on their forcing numbers then we they would have something…Just changing where the starting point is seem a bit like hocus pocus to me…*

  • Anonymous

    When people try to pretend weather and climate are the same thing, or not scientific terms, I smile.

    “weather: The state of the atmosphere at a particular time and place. Weather is described in terms of variable conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind velocity, precipitation, and barometric pressure. Weather on Earth occurs primarily in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere, and is driven by energy from the Sun and the rotation of the Earth. The average weather conditions of a region over time are used to define aregion’s climate.

    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary”

    Everyone who bothers to look understands the difference.

    “And when you complain none are ‘climate scientists’”

    And when I say that I am referring to your appeal to your authorities with no real authority on the subject. Just because Pielke Sr says something similar does not impart and more expertise to the people you brought forward.

    Hansen is an example of someone who is worth listening to however mentioning him as being being a better source than the NASA administrators is not a sign of ignoring others nor the questions. However making a series of limp comments and baseless arguments indicates looking at the full body of evidence isn’t something you are interested in.

    Answers to a & b are rather simple. Yes and yes. Of course if the pseudo-skeptics could produce some evidence.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll repeat the last bit as it makes all of this clap trap moot:

    However back to that paper you conclude with here’s a problem with his math. He concludes: “That is: Above 200 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 there is no increase in the greenhouse affect due to CO2, and changes to human emissions of CO2 will have no affect on climate.” Trouble for him is a variety of papers have measured the increased GHE due to CO2 since 1979. Which means we can measure the effect caused by the climb from 340 ppm until now. Whatever John is doing, he’s doing it wrong. Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007 measure CO2 effects at the top of the atmosphere and Wang 2009, Philipona 2004, Evans 2006 measure it from the ground.

    Real world measurements show the emissivity argument as made by your citation to be false.
    All those quotes come from a book not a scientific paper. Jo Nova doesn’t take it seriously anymore, no serious scientist does. Certainly not the other guy you mention Richard Lindzen. However it was funny to read how Jo Nova attempts to put herself in the center of the climate debate by creating a strawman argument.

  • Anonymous

    “had the IPCC put forth experiments showing proof on their forcing numbers”
    The IPCC doesn’t write papers or do experiments. They summarize the work done. The experiments are in the citations.

  • Anonymous

    What becomes increasingly obvious is you will cite anything that claims it goes against AGW. Math that has lots of citations but doesn’t work in the real world. A few scientists who you just heard about because they said something you think is new and or novel. However they are all well known to me. There are only a few of the so called “skeptical scientists” around so anyone who knows this issue knows who they are and what their arguments are. However none of them can produce evidence of their claims that will stand up to examination. Your cut and past anything that says no to AGW demonstrates you are a pseudo-skeptic.

    Lindzen is a bit of a joke now. He was a serious scientist but he’s moved away from MIT to take a job with an economic think tank because they will let him continue to write as if his position has some support. Lindzen’s last paper was blasted in peer review and he later admitted it had some stupid errors. His promised rewrite never materialized. There is no evidence for his theorized “iris effect”

  • Anonymous

    NOAA records show an increase in severe storms. Feel free to semanticize that how you choose, weirdo

    gfdl DOT noaa DOTR gov SLASH pix/user_images/tk/global_warm_hurr/Adjust_TS_Count.png

  • Anonymous

    If we are concerned that people can’t afford the necessities of life, we should provide those necessities directly. Subsidizing fossil fuels is not caring for people. This country should be subsidizing other fuels, fuels that don’t increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. It is seriously seriously time to move on from fossil fuel. The industry has a strangle hold on our govt, its criminal

  • Anonymous

    My Uncle just before I saw the draft ov $5039 , I be certain that…my…
    cousin woz truley bringing home money in there spare time on their apple
    labtop. . there sisters neighbour started doing this for under eighteen months
    and resently took care of the mortgage on there condo and bought a great Mercedes
    . have a peek at this web-site F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

  • Anonymous

    Lets say you roll dice and it comes up seven ten times in a row. Do you think there is anything wrong with the dice? What about a hundred times in a row? It doesn’t make any difference how many roll came before. It what the dice or climate is doing now.

  • Anonymous

    The climate change research & record goes back far longer than 134 years. SImply look at the Ice Core Extraction (ICE) data…try 20,000-10,000 years.

  • Anonymous

    You don’t think physics can be used to determine the distance the Earth is/was in relation to the Sun? That’s some pretty serious denial.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t know where you got that from? It wasn’t from anything I posted.

  • charles

    re, my two papers. Jad you look at the table on Johns you would have seen the calculated emissivity numbers which has been varified by many people(oh i better say sciebtist or you might miss understand me)…No it not zero at 200 it just the rate of effect greatly slows there and from 400 to 800 the decimal change is over .001 or something I am not going to go get it to paste here for you. It was in Egg(sp)…He did note the IPPC indtead of starting from. zero ppm they chose to use 200ppm as starting place when they made their forcing table and he includes iy in the paper…

    RE”papers have measured the increased GHE due to CO2 since 1979″ I submitt all they done is measured temp change snf frvided by co2 change…Thats not a causak relationship foe if it were there models would work!

  • charles

    Greenhouse Gas Hypotheses. Which or both of the two do you buy? 1. The Earth’s surface then emits long wavelength infrared radiation upward into the atmosphere. The infrared absorbing gases in the atmosphere absorb most of the IR radiation and re-emit half of it into space and half of it back toward the surface.

    2. claim this decreased cooling at high altitudes causes the lower altitudes and the surface of the Earth to warm..

  • charles

    as scientist and engineer, comment on below

    IR-Active or Greenhouse Gases

    All IR-absorbing gases do is capture energy for an instant due to the excitation of their chemical bonds and then they release it, either by radiating it away or by colliding with another gas molecule such as the predominant nitrogen or oxygen molecules and transferring energy to them. These predominant molecules of nitrogen and oxygen then transfer this collision-absorbed energy through convection and gas collisions with other molecules. But, none of these effects do more than transfer energy. They do not create it. They do not magnify the energy of the sun or serve as a supplementary source of energy, though the evaporation and condensation of water do greatly affect the distribution of energy in the atmosphere. There is no analog to these many water vapor roles for the much rarer CO2, methane, or nitrous oxide. In addition, the lifetime of methane and nitrous oxide is shorter since they are broken down by UV radiation.

    Another basic reason the greenhouse gas or IR-absorbing gas idea of emitted, half absorbed, and re-emitted, then half absorbed idea does not work is because the photons of radiation inside a black body radiator do not behave like ordinary particles. They are bosons and radiation from the walls of the black body varies to keep the conditions on the hollow interior of a black body sphere at constant temperature in equilibrium. The energy density per unit interior volume remains constant for a given temperature inside the black body sphere even if you expand the sphere and make it bigger. To keep that constant energy density per unit volume, the walls actually produce more photons per unit area when you make the sphere volume larger. This larger flux of photons off both the inner wall and outer wall surfaces corresponds to the same black body temperature. Doubling the radius of the black body sphere of a given temperature causes the flux of photons per unit surface area to also double. This is not very intuitive for most people. Indeed, it is not intuitive to most people who have long studied physics. You cannot in a similar way increase the number of atoms, for instance.

    The chemical potential of black-body radiation is zero, which is a most remarkable property. This can contribute to many misunderstandings of how black body radiation is to be applied to real-world objects. It also is important in understanding why a warmer body does not generally absorb radiation from a cooler body, despite a flux of photons from the cooler body being incident upon the warmer body. Due to local fluctuations and to the Boltzmann velocity distribution of gas molecules there are some exceptions of absorption in the Earth’s surface of photon emitted from somewhat cooler air above it, but this is a relatively insignificant effect.

    The chemical potential of zero also causes problems with even thinking you can follow the emissions of individual photons and count them and figure out how many are absorbed by IR-absorbing gases and then how many photons are emitted by the excited gas as radiation versus how much of the energy absorbed by the IR-absorbing gas is lost due to collisions with the many other gas molecules in the lower atmosphere. This is a real problem, since below about 4000 meters altitude, more energy is transferred by collisions, mostly to nitrogen and oxygen molecules, than is transferred by radiation. To further complicate things, energy is also transported by the evaporation of water, the sublimation of ice, the condensation of water vapor, by air conduction and convection currents, by winds, and by the expansion of warm air as it rises. These other energy transfer mechanisms are the reason why the Earth’s surface itself is not in thermal radiative equilibrium with space as the sphere at the 5,100 meter altitude effectively is.

    Heat Capacity of the Surface Effects

  • Anonymous

    “RE”papers have measured the increased GHE due to CO2 since 1979″ I submitt all they done is measured temp change snf frvided by co2 change…Thats not a causak relationship foe if it were there models would work!”

    No they didn’t. For the down radiation they measured the amount of infra red directly. For upwelling they used a direct proxy for IR radiation. No models involved other than their comparisons of model projections to their empirical results.

    You are finding excuses to not have to deal with direct data that shows their conclusion is wrong. If you were a skeptic it might make you want to find out why. But I think you know this would show that your love of math based solutions would be destroyed as what we find is John did his calculations incorrectly.

  • Anonymous

    There is only one greenhouse gas hypothesis. Extremely simply put, the Earth emits long wave radiation and a significant proportion of this is absorbed by greenhouse gases. The gases then re-radiate that energy in all directions. However it is wrong to treat the earth’s atmosphere as a single layer (1/2 down, 1/2 up). This will happen many many times before the energy eventually escapes to space.
    This increased warming at lower altitudes will cause the stratosphere to cool. (also directly measured)

  • Anonymous

    He gets most of the first paragraph correct until he says “They do not magnify the energy of the sun or serve as a supplementary source of energy” What GHGs do is slow the energy being emitted by the Earth from escaping to space. In this way they magnify the suns energy and are why the planet is 33 °C warmer than it would be without these trace gases. Yes there is no analog to water vapour’s evaporation and condensation role but that doesn’t explain a warming planet either. This is such a massive error on his part that it looks critical. Without understanding these basics how can you make any comment of anything else?

    He then goes on a long diatribe about black body radiation. It’s actually pretty unclear what he’s actually talking about. He begins by saying there is a problem with CO2 reemitting so he may be talking about CO2. If so he clearly understands little about how CO2 absorbs and reemits energy. CO2 does not emit energy as a black body. It absorbs a photon of IR by vibrating (the 2 oxygens atoms change position). GHGs absorb and emit on one wavelength and not a full Plank Curve. So he’s massively wrong if that’s what he’s talking about.

    If he means the Earth then he’s got another problem. While the Earth does radiate essentially like a black body it is a black body with an atmosphere, an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and that changes everything.

    Last paragraph is all based on the idea that he has something in his first few. He doesn’t so it’s moot.

    Once again all I can ask is why do you have so much faith in obscure ideas published on web pages rather than submitted to serious scientific journals? There are many, many web sites with people who have some background in physics who figure either they see something atmospheric physicists have not thought of or who believe all those atmospheric physicists are wrong while they are right. The scientific term for that kind of arrogance is Dunning-Kruger.

    As I say and you keep avoiding, real world measurements prove this paper wrong.

  • charles

    >This will happen many many times before the energy eventually escapes to space.?

    still the question of whether the surface can absorb this back-radiation when it already is emitting radiation at the appropriate level for a generally warmer body.

  • Anonymous

    rojawi, you are meddling with the primal forces of the interwebs!

  • John Samuel

    John Tyndall. 1859. Argue with him.

  • John Samuel

    Warmer is not better.

  • John Samuel

    Try paleoclimatology. Try PAGES 2K in last April’s Nature.

  • John Samuel

    Is PSI your idea of reputable? They sell bridges.

  • John Samuel

    Where are the deniers’ papers?

  • CreepingDeaf

    Are people truly trying to argue with a Libertarian? Perhaps you should look up futile in the dictionary.

  • Andrew C Livingston

    Why are you arguing with him? His last comment has the only word you need to know: Objectivist.

    He is a Randian “Libertarian”, his arguments come solely from ideology. He’s “right” because he believes he is right. This is not about science. Stop feeding the trolls! ;-)

  • Andrew C Livingston

    There is only one camp in this debate that lies. Only one. And it is patently obvious which one it is.

  • Anonymous

    Have you ever noticed that people put a plastic cover on a pool to help it retain heat? The same thing is happening in the ocean, particularly in the Great Pacific Gyre (GPG). The GPG has become a collection of plastic and other floating debris that is larger than the state of Texas. Much like a pool cover this material reduces the rate at which heat if given off from the ocean. Just one example of how man has effected his environment and is causing global warming.

  • Fixed Sight Training

    I’m sure they already know but in a choice between integrity and getting a big government “research grant” to justify more government and higher taxes can we trust the result?

  • keninomaha1 .
  • charles

    John Tyndall.built railroads. big deal

    refute the work the math show where it is erred. Ya don’t here me saying Hansen is a hack or perhaps, I should, using your logic…no I’ll try to find work that shows Hansen wrong instead!

  • charles

    I havent found access to those citations. re IPCC

    Haven’t followed but I read certain skeptics even couldn’t get access….Yeah peer review by whom, a joke lol… but still I wonder…I pmly recebtly got interested in this again as I am worried our current Pres and Dems want to levy a useless co2 tax on us….. I looked at it 6 ten years ago and thought I saw no problem…AS it turned out the IPCC was wrong on temperatures as they didn’t happen…But I worry when Shell is willing and already has spent billions for carbon captuure in Canada….This tells me they are going along with the AGW and it’s useless tax foe co2 control. Rio Tento et al have figured like me I think those carbon tax dollars will help like Mongolia fumd part of the mine contruction in the future… Currently Rio pays 100 percent of the construction and gives Mongolia 34 Percent ownership of the mine and then pays taxes to the Government also…would it be nice to make Americans pay more tax from co2 and give cash to Mongolia in the form of Carbon credits then Mongolia may pay 34 percent of the mine contruction costs which is in the billions of dollars!

    Whats worse the AGW gasn’t proven Climate change is CO2.
    but hey we don’t question the hypotheical do we?

  • Anonymous

    The climate deniers are financed by the Koch brothers, mainly so they don’t have to clean up the air, water & land they are destroying with the waste runoff. They’ve won the honor of the largest polluters in the U.S.

  • charles

    Because this reply stuff is confusing to use. Wayne stated John Eggert said co2 200ppm was zero clearly he didnt read….

    *An Unsettling Look at the Settled Science of Global Warming*
    *Part 3: Policy Maker’s Summary*
    *John Eggert P.Eng.*
    In Part 1 of this series, a detailed description of the use of the engineering method (known as the
    path length approximation) for radiant heat absorption in the atmosphere (the greenhouse effect)
    shows that:
    • The IPCC method for calculating the greenhouse effect of CO2 generates similar results
    to the engineering method for levels up to 100 ppm CO2;
    • At levels above 100 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, the IPCC method overestimates the
    impact of CO2 on the greenhouse effect, compared to the engineering method; • The engineering method shows that for levels of CO2 above 200 ppm, increases in CO2
    have a negligible impact on the greenhouse effect;
    • The engineering method predicts that increasing CO2 from current levels to 800 ppm
    (more than double) will have AT THE MOST, the same effect as has occurred in the last
    100 years (from 278 ppm to about 350 ppm).
    • The maximum effect possible from increased CO2 will be equal to or less than the
    Copenhagen protocol. That is, the effect of no action is to meet the Copenhagen protocol.
    It is important to note:
    • The engineering method has been successfully used for decades in numerous fields, with
    designs based on it working in many areas;
    • The IPCC method has never been tested except in computer models; That is, the engineering method has been proven to work, while the IPCC method has not.
    Copyright John Eggert 2009

  • John Samuel

    The great thing about reading reputable journals is that you don’t have to debunk every demented engineer’s tortured logic on a blog.

  • Anonymous

    I am of course not saying the masses of plastic in the ocean is not a massive problem but:
    A pool cover is a continuous thing while the plastic in the ocean is anything but. It is mostly a huge amount of tiny particles of plastic. On the other hand there is something like this going on. CO2 heats the surface skin of the oceans (only microns thick) this reduces the thermal gradient. (The ocean is usually warmer than the air. The bigger the difference the faster heat travels across this boundary) By heating the surface the difference between the surface and bulk of the water is greatly reduced and thus the rate the heat can escape the water slows. This warms the water.

  • Ray Cote

    Who are these people who deny that the climate exists?

  • Anonymous

    You mean that volume of pseudo-science? It’s a propaganda piece by the Heartland Institute. A load of misinformation by the ostriches. Try a proper scientific report like the IPCC or even the National Science Academy,

  • Anonymous

    “The engineering method shows that for levels of CO2 above 200 ppm, increases in CO2 have a negligible impact on the greenhouse effect”

    His engineering method is refuted by real world measurements. I’ve cited you the studies that show back-radiation and up-radiation changes are in line with expected by calculations in the IPCC Report.
    He apparently understands how CO2 might behave in a one layered atmosphere but not the atmosphere as it exists in the real world. There it isn’t even close to saturated. Like I said, if he’s so confident in his numbers why did he submit it to a fake journal instead of a real one? Why aren’t you skeptical of that?

  • Anonymous

    So you’re saying the Earth can never warm? Yes when radiation continues to enter but it’s escape is delayed more and more it warms the planet. When more energy gets added it warms until a new equilibrium occurs. Basic science. We’ll just have to stop raising the bar for that to occur though.

  • Anonymous

    There is absolute proof CO2 is warming the planet. Feedbacks are being observed as expected. There is little evidence for anything else supplementing the CO2 and a fair bit for other influences trying to cool it.

    I think a carbon tax would work well and likely improve the economy. Trouble is both parties in the USA are not helpful. One is saying the right things and not acting while the other has got it’s head up it’s ass. Probably because it’s been taken over by the anti-science, anti-civilization Tea Party.

    Don’t like the solution then suggest another. Policy is an option but facts are not optional.

  • Anonymous

    “Haven’t followed but I read certain skeptics even couldn’t get access”
    That’s what they claim when they can’t convince anyone. They are a bunch of entitled idiots this little cabal of denialists. Old men holding onto old ideas.

    “yeah peer review by whom, a joke lol”

    Right because the last thing you want to do is put your paper in front of people who actually understand the physics of the atmosphere. Better to hide in on an obscure web page where no one who knows what they’re talking about goes.

    There are skeptical papers that get published you know. Can’t convince someone with expertise that your ideas have merit? Blame the process…It’s the deniers way.

  • charles

    The great thing about reading reputable journal…..

    try this. Page 1International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, 1, 102-112doi:10.4236/ijg.2010.13014 Published Online November 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ijg)

    Copyright © 2010 SciRes.

    IJGWarming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with

    Temperature ChangesPaulo Cesar SoaresEarth Sciences, Federal University of Parana (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil

    E-mail: p_soares@terra.com.br

    Received July 29, 2010; revised September 13, 2010; accepted September 30, 2010

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_wfoqmE4ESUJ:www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx%3FpaperID%3D3447+&cd=70&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

  • Anonymous

    “The Max Planck Institute in Germany has the data that shows the sun is more active since 1940 than any time in the last 8,000 years. That’s exactly consistent with this short warming cycle.”

    No it’s not because it peaked in 1960 and has been flat since then. The sun has had no real impact on warming since 1975. Numerous papers conclude this.

    There are some papers saying the sun may go into a Maunder Minimum. No paper takes that as a sign we are in for a cold period. Even a maunder minimum would only slow warming down 0.3C at most by 2100. In the meantime 4 or 5 C of CO2 warming is likely.

    “The sun is gazillions of times more impactful than the small mass of humanity on the earth.”

    Sort of. It is the source of essentially all energy in the climate system but even with it’s cycles it is a very stable star (lucky us) and it is not a big player in climate change.

    If you want to understand why CO2 lags temp read this:
    http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
    We know much more than you like to pretend. Changes to CO2 concentration has been the biggest influence on climate change since the beginning of Earth’s history

    The equivalent of the Military Industrial Complex in this case is the Fossil Fuel Industrial Complex. They are the ones politicizing and faking the science.

  • John Larsen

    Svensmarks theories are being portrayed in reverse in this article, his point is that lower solar activity would increase galactic radiation, this would increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, thusly increasing global warming through the green house effect, as water vapour is a far more effective green house gas than co2. But just claiming he said “Sun heat up earth” is of course easier for debunking.

  • Emmanuel Caubergs

    Simply explain HOW humans are heating up the climate if that’s the claim.

  • Paul Stevens

    So, looking at the temperature chart of the last 134 years, it would appear that the temperature went up at a much higher rate from 1910 to 1945 than it has from 1980 to 2014. Two questions. What caused the rapid warming from 1910 to 1945? The answer is, presumably, natural causes, since the increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times was negligible then. Second question. If it was natural causes then, why isn’t it natural causes for the slower rate of increase in temperature from 1980 to 2014?

    When you can tell me what caused the 35 year span of warming from 1910 to 1945, and what then caused the 35 years of cooling that followed, I might believe you understand enough about what drives the climate to go along with the 300 billion dollar a year expense to combat “climate change.” The principle precept of medicine is “Do no harm.” Throwing away money on what most “apocalyptic climate change” supporters are advocating would definitely “do harm,” and far more harm then a world wide increase in temperature of 2 degrees, which humanity has experienced three times in the last 4000 years. societies fall apart when the temperature goes down, no up.

  • Anonymous

    wow, REALLY? Where do I pick up my check then? I’d love some Koch brothers money.

  • JP

    “proper”, and “IPCC” should never be used in the same sentence. Can we get a chart showing when government agencies were considered trustworthy and free from corruption?

  • Dave Morris

    If you don’t understand, just say so. People can help you.

  • Publicola

    Uh, yeah, that’s the claim – not sure how you could have missed that one.

    I’m also not sure who you could have missed how we are warming the planet. We are putting greenhouse gases – which warm the planet, notably including CO2 and methane – into the atmosphere and thus increasing their concentration in the atmosphere. which warms the planet.

  • Anonymous

    Emmanuel: park next to a steel factory for half an hour and you’ll see the answer.

  • Anonymous

    Gosh, is that all there is to it? To think of the hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted on climate research, only a tiny amount of which goes to explainig how come CO2 has never been a climate driver in the past, and more does it seem to be one now. It is as if other factors are very much more important. Perhaps they will all just go away if we shut down civilisation for a few decades?

  • Anonymous

    The science looks good to me. I suppose you simply have not studied the reports. You don’t need to after all.

  • Publicola

    “Gosh, is that all there is to it?”

    In very simple terms, yes. The science involved however is considerably more complex, as I know first-hand from having studied atmospheric physics and statistical trend analysis in detail in graduate school.

    By the way your specious “CO2 has never been a climate driver in the past” claim is undermined by the empirical evidence, which at some junctures shows CO2 increase leading temperature increase. Even if your specious claim were true, however, as Dr. Hayhoe observed above “Just because something happened before for one reason, doesn’t mean that when it happens again it’s for the same reason.”

    Your specious “…and more does it seem to be one now” is even more reality-challenged. As Dr. Hayhoe also explained:

    “‘OK, could it be a natural cycle this time? Could it be the sun? Could it be volcanoes? Could it be orbital cycles and ice ages?’ We run those tests and we see if it could be any of those things that caused the climate to change naturally in the past. And in this case, we’ve run those tests and the answer to all those questions is, ‘no.’ In fact, if our temperature were controlled by natural causes right now, we’d be getting cooler, not warmer.

    Reading for comprehension: it’s not just a good idea, it helps you understand reality.

  • jaquare

    Yes, they wrote only BS about Svensmarks theories. He tried to find out how low altitude clouds form, and he thinks and also proofed that galactic radiation is a significant factor for forming of clouds. These clouds are bouncing back solar energy and therefore are a major factor for earths climate.

    An isreali scientist also assumed, that our solar systems relativ position in the galaxy has an impact on our climate because of the galatic radiation. He had solid facts which seem to fit pretty well, showing correlation between the position of our solar system and ice ages on earth. But I guess climate is only driven by CO2, right?

  • Anonymous

    Hayhoe, like you, inhabits a far simpler world than the one I perceive out there. In mine, CO2 is a very minor player in the climate system, the complexity of which boggles the mind, and remains to date beyond any hope of being captured by our feeble computers. In yours, CO2 is a magical control knob with which to turn temperatures up or down as we please. There’s a useful piece by Bob Carter at WUWT
    (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not/ ) where he addresses differences between him and Hayhoe. His article finishes with this paragraph ‘The idea that there can be a one-size-fits-all global solution to deal with just one possible aspect of future climate change, as recommended by the IPCC and favoured by green activists and most media commentators, fails entirely to deal with the real climate and climate-related hazards to which we are all exposed every day.’

  • Publicola

    “ClimateLearner”, in reference to the Heartland “Institute” anti-climate science PR firm’s “Climate Change Reconsidered II” anti-science propaganda:

    “The science looks good to me.”

    Good for you. And your scientific education and expertise that somehow makes you think you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences is… what, exactly?

  • Doug Lowthian

    As as been said, CO2 (among other gases) are drivers of warming in the atmosphere. CO2 cycles slowly through the Earth’s system. We area accelerating the movement of CO2 from subsurface locations to the atmosphere where it stays. We know from the past that increasing CO2 increases temperature. There are no identified natural sources that can account for the increased CO2 with the isotopic signature we are seeing. Human emissions are one of the drivers of a warming planet. Add to that land use changes which act as feedback loops and other changes and we are contributing to the warming. All of it? No, likely not. Most of it? Yes.

    The basic physics explaining it were confirmed nearly 100 years ago and have yet to be truly refuted, only refined and further confirmed. This knowledge is not new…

  • Doug Lowthian

    There are graphs that compile the whole hundreds of millions of years of climate data sets. Well worth a look. Combined with a good knowledge of drivers and you’ll see we are having a profound impact on our planet.

  • Anonymous

    And the fact that the past 400,000 years show the same patterns of temperature as we see now?

  • Publicola

    Your “fact” is a falsehood.

    If we were in the same pattern as the past 400,000 years we’d now be in a relatively very slow cooling trend, which we were in fact in until the Fossil Fuel Era when the trend abruptly reversed itself into a relatively very fast warming trend.

  • Publicola

    “Hayhoe, like you, inhabits a far simpler world than the one I perceive out there. In mine, CO2 is a very minor player in the climate system”

    Good for you. And your scientific education and expertise that somehow makes you think you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences is… what, exactly?

    “There’s a useful piece by Bob Carter… where he addresses differences between him and Hayhoe.”

    Bob Carter… You mean the Dr. Robert M “Bob” Carter who is on the Heartland “Institute” anti-climate science PR firm payroll, and who has committed de facto global warming fraud by for example misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/

    Why yes, you do.

    There are indeed differences between Bob Carter and Katherine Hayhoe, not the least of which being that, unlike Katherine Hayhoe, Bob Carter has committed de facto global warming fraud.

  • Publicola

    Most of you climate science deniers are so mislead by professional anti-climate science denier propaganda that you parrot their anti-science propaganda for free.

  • Publicola

    “Climate deniers” is short for climate science deniers.

    Hope this helps.

  • Anonymous

    nah, it’s still a general downward trend; just look at the graphs. It’s going to take a whole lot of human engineering to counter the cycle of precession. Even then, we’d have to figure out a way to counter the feedbacks without killing precipitation.

  • Publicola

    “his point is that lower solar activity would increase galactic radiation”

    With respect to recent global warming empirical measurements undermine this hypothesis. Said ‘galactic radiation” – aka galactic “cosmic rays” – have been holding steady for decades.

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikation/solanki/c153.pdf

  • Anonymous

    lol. Because government-funded science has never been a source of lies and deceit in order to maintain a source of revenue for those heavily invested in that sweet tax-payer funding.

    how about the fact that the University of Queensland is threatening legal action over some debunking of their “97% of scientists agree” paper, because it turned out to be actually less than 1% when the raw data was made public?

    dailycaller(dot)com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=1

    Or how about the suppression of data which contradicts the general man-made global warming hysteria being suppressed because it “damages” climate activism globally? Thankfully, some people in the scientific field have enough guts to blow the whistle.

    youtube(dot)com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8

  • Publicola

    “nah, it’s still a general downward trend; just look at the graphs”

    Reality denial isn’t pretty – back here on planet Earth the global has been warming.

    Just look at the graphs, including this one from NASA:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    “It’s going to take a whole lot of human engineering to counter the cycle of precession.”

    The cycle of recession – and Milankovitch cycles more generally – aren’t driving the observed global warming over recent decades. If they were then we’d have seen more incoming solar radiation over recent decades, which we haven’t. We also wouldn’t also be seeing stratospheric cooling over recent decades – which, as with global warming over recent decades – was moreover predicted by man-made global warming (AGW) theory. Finally Milankovitch cycles cool the earth on timescales of thousands of years – the observed recent global warming is happening at a much faster rate, over a scale of decades.

    “we’d have to figure out a way to counter the feedbacks without killing precipitation.”

    You are again in realty denial. Substantially reducing CO2 and methane emissions would substantially mitigate the increase in said atmospheric greenhouse gases, which in turn would substantially mitigate global warming.

  • Publicola

    “lol. Because government-funded science has never been a source of lies and deceit”

    Wittingly or otherwise, you are parroting climate science lies and deceit.

    For example your claim above that we are still in the relatively very slow downward global cooling trend that existed for thousands of years before the Fossil Fuel Era is nothing short of ridiculous.

  • Publicola

    “[Svensmarks has] proofed that galactic radiation is a significant factor for forming of clouds”

    Wrong.

    But don’t take my word for it – here’s the European Organization for Nuclear Research, aka CERN:

    “We have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied… This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed.”

    - CERN

    http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf

  • Publicola

    Republican Climate Scientist Dr. Barry Bickmore:

    Anti-climate science propagandists are ‘Enemies of Democracy’
    ———————————————————————————————–

    “I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change. Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature, and the other Republican (and some Democratic) members have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker…

    “In addition, I’m a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run…

    “Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy.”

    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/

  • Publicola

    Republican Climate Scientist Dr. Barry Bickmore:

    Anti-climate science propagandists are ‘Enemies of Democracy’
    ———————————————————————————————–

    “I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change. Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature, and the other Republican (and some Democratic) members have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker…

    “In addition, I’m a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run…

    “Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy.”

    http://bbickmore.wordpress(dot)com/about-this-blog/

  • Anonymous

    “Just look at the graphs”
    No, you look at the graphs. Taking data from hundreds of thousands of years, then zooming in on 120 years and claiming, “See, it was going down, now its going up!” is not indicative of human cause. Looking at previous highs and lows, there were small highs and lows within each extreme. The nomadic humans in the past did not have SUVs or cattle farms. Seeing a trend of 1*C is not a reason to use government to strangle money out of people and pass regulations/taxes on simply being alive. IDK about you personally, but warming alarmists are as ridiculous as religious zealots, where original sin has been replaced with simply living and producing Co2. It is bad to be alive, and so you must pay to reduce your impact on the environment.

    There is nothing wrong with green energy that is actually green. Theres nothing wrong with reducing pollution. But there is absolutely something wrong with pointing guns at people over BS like climate change, when there are so many other obvious things that could be addressed like China.

    “aren’t driving the observed global warming over recent decades.”
    Obviously.

    “Substantially reducing CO2 and methane emissions would substantially mitigate the increase in said atmospheric greenhouse gases”

    Water vapor is they largest part of green house gas. So no, reducing emissions would not “substantially” reduce the presence of greenhouse gasses. If you want to reduce the temperature of the earth, cloud seeding has already been established. Send boats out into the ocean and spray saltwater into the air to make clouds. The clouds reflect sunlight, and the earth cools. The solution is there, yet it isn’t being done, because the people getting paid to do “climate science” don’t want an answer, they just want money.

  • Anonymous

    Yep, just completely ignore the articles posted which show clear and obvious distortions in data and coverups to maintain the climate-scare debate.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah man, the FDA and CDC raised the safe level of radiation found in asian imports a couple years back – surely its because humans suddenly became more resistant to radiation poisoning! Nothing to do with protecting corporate interests in overseas dealings with china and japan as a result of fukushima.

    The FDA also has the ex-vp of Monsanto at the reins now! I’m sure we’ll see fair and logical science coming out of the FDA when it comes to testing GMO’s. The FDA also said smoking and asbestos were safe as well – government knows best, right?

  • Anonymous

    The very nature of research grants dictate, in the terms, that payment is not based on the outcome. They aren’t paid to do that. Plus, it would be in the governments best interest to dispute climate change due to so many vested interests in the corporate energy sector.

    If you’re going to cry foul for corruption, at least have the motivation make sense.

  • jomike

    “In yours, CO2 is a magical control knob with which to turn temperatures up or down as we please.”

    Absurd strawman

  • Anonymous

    Of course I’ve studied the reports. that’s why I know they’re pseudo-science.

  • Anonymous

    So the best you can do is a form of ad hominem? Automatic assumption based upon your own prejudice. Their work is supported by the vast majority of climate scientists, numerous national academies of science and loads of scientific organizations. Try and make a real argument.

  • Christopher Crowder

    Um, I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but the very first graph in this article showed the 5 year mean in decline over the course of a not insignificant period.

  • Anonymous

    2 Answers:
    1) Causes in the earlier period: solar increase + reduction in volcanic activity + human CO2 production. The rate is essentially the same in both periods. But the early period warmed only about 0.35C while the latter is at least 0.6C.
    2) How do we know it’s all CO2 now because the reduction in volcanic activity stopped having an influence long ago and the sun has been in decline from it’s 1960 peak. There is no well supported theory for additional energy coming in another way. In fact it is possible that CO2 is responsible for up to 124% of the observed warming as other factors are generally trying to cause cooling.
    By the way, finding an additional source of warming it wouldn’t alter the basic physics of CO2, it would mean there would likely be something else that is causing additional cooling. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, end of story.

    The slight cooling in mid century? Most likely human emitted aerosols. All that fossil fuel burning, especially coal, and no clean air acts in the developed world? Blocked a lot of sun. That’s why some were saying in the 70s, if we don’t get that under control it might really cool a lot. Clean air acts start coming in and the warming starts. Interesting, eh?

    I absolutely agree with do no harm. There is no real harm moving to more sustainable energy sources or a greener economy. Lots of economic activity to be had. If you think the cost of 2 degrees is manageable how do you feel about 4 degrees. That’s where we’ll likely be by 2100. There are multiple reports that disagree with you and say the costs far outweigh the benefits. Action is using the precautionary principle the harm from inaction far outweighs the harm that could come from inaction

    When are these three supposed 2C warming events over the past 4000 years? Please don’t say Minoan, Roman and Medieval. Then I’ll know you’re just parroting nonscience blogs.

  • Dano2

    In mine, CO2 is a very minor player in the climate system,

    Yours is an incomplete, backwards world, evidenced by the use of Bob Carter and Watts.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    There’s a hilarious account of the reviewers rubbishing Svensmark for one of his papers a few years ago. It should be too embarrassing for a mainstream researcher to continue working.

    Best,

    D

  • Dano2

    Daily Caller references make you not only hilarious, but without credibility.

    Jus’ sayin’.

    Best.

    D

  • Paul Stevens

    I didn’t even have to do significant searching online. Wikipedia describes the Roman and Medieval warm period and lists two articles in Nature and one in Geophysical Research Letters that describe them. there are multiple scientific papers describing those periods. Or are you suggesting that the hundreds of papers describing and validating the medieval warm period are by authors who are all in the pay of the oil companies? Here are references to more than 60 papers identifying evidence of the MWP from North American locations:

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/northamerica.php

    Lost more from other parts of the world here:

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

  • Anonymous

    I’ll feed the trolls if I wish. You think they’ll stop coming if you ignore them? I write because I like to leave breadcrumbs for those who wonder and see claims like his. Challenge all denier claims.

  • Anonymous

    Stupid, non-physics based answer. If energy continues to come into a system but the rate the energy leaves is slowed the system will warm. No escaping that. There is no off switch.

  • jimmyjimmy

    Yeah thats it, climate scientist just won’t explain it!! WHy won’t they EXPLAIN?!?!

    Good grief.

  • jimmyjimmy

    yes, climate science is a big conspiracy.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, so many errors and I’ve barely started. He repeats your flawed two different greenhouse theory claim. There is only one. Apparently he can’t understand why an enhanced GHE causes the stratosphere to cool.

    He claims there is a conservation of energy problem with the multiple emission and re-emission of IR from a greenhouse gas. He doesn’t understand that energy continues to enter the system.

    He also models the atmosphere as a single layer. It’s not.

    And I’ve barely even started. Sounds like he’s letting his politics interfere with his understanding of a field he should e able to do better in. An objectivist who is not very objective.

  • Anonymous

    It is heartening to see so many commenters here who have notembeen taken-in or impressed by facile ‘rebuttals’ such as those listed above. It is also interesting to note the frenetic level of commenting by a few apologists for the alarm-machine here. That suggests to me that they are quite rattled, and I think that will be noted by many who come this way.

  • Publicola

    You Dirtybluefl (act as if you) can’t even grasp the very basic climate science fact that we are no longer in the relatively very slow downward global cooling trend that we were in for thousands of years before the Fossil Fuel Era and are now instead in a relatively very fast warming trend.

    As you seemingly can’t even understand that very basic climate science fact there’s no point in explaining to you how your other claims here are anti-science disinformation too.

  • Publicola

    Um, I hate to undermine your science denier crapola with actual science (ok not really), but decade-scale surface and atmosphere temperature trends are too short with respect assessing the man-made global warming (AGW) signal. Decade scale factors including the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino/La Nina cycle introduce decade-scale temporary warming and cooling that can and often does temporarily mask the AGW signal.

  • Publicola

    The site you linked to – “CO2Science” – is an anti-climate science propaganda site headed by a guy who is on the Heartland “Institute” anti-climate science PR firm’s payroll.

    In any event there is evidence for a Medieval Warm Period and for a Roman Warm Period. There was not however 2 deg C warming during those periods, your anti-science rhetoric that would have one believe otherwise notwithstanding,

  • Publicola

    “CO2 Science isn’t “anti-climate science” since they obviously link to climate science papers.”

    [facepalm]

    Do you really believe that because a website “obviously links to climate science papers” that it cannot be an anti-science propaganda site? If so I have a bridge to sell you, Mr. Paul Stevens.

    Also why do regard the “CO2Science” website as more credible with respect to climate science than the National Academy of Sciences – the fact that the head of the “CO2Science” website is on the Heartland “Institute” anti-climate science PR firm’s payroll notwithstanding?

    “…catastrophe…”

    Please define in a scientifically-testable manner what you mean by “catastrophe” in this context – thank you.

    ‘…come up with credible refutations to the 70 plus science papers that they link to proving the existence of warm periods in the recent past that demonstrate warming is possible without CO2…”

    Of course warming is possible without CO2, and no climate scientist has ever claimed or suggested otherwise.

    Got any more science denier straw men? Of course you do.

    “Then come up with reasonable explanations of why those warm periods occurred.”

    Google is your friend.

    “Then explain why whatever natural force prompted century long periods of warming is not responsible for the current 150 year long recovery from the end of the well recognized ‘Little Ice Age.’”

    Known natural forcing agents of past global warming – including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 – cannot explain the bulk of global warming over recent decades – warming that was moreover predicted by man-made global warming (AGW) theory. Neither has any scientific hypothesis or theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than AGW theory survived scientific scrutiny.

    But hey, if you disagree then present whatever non-AGW theory or hypothesis you think explains the bulk of global warming over recent decades, and present what in your mind is the scientific evidence that supports your established science-denying assertion.

  • Steven Witmer

    Watts is a former TV weatherman who never even completed college. He refused to respond to multiple requests whether or not he had a college degree. Perdue University finally confirmed that he did attend, but never graduated.

    So, we have a TV weatherman who dropped out of college versus — 97% of active climate scientists.

    Btw, Svante Arrhenius determined the greenhouse gas potential of carbon dioxide in the 19th century and theorized it could result in the warming of the climate. This isn’t something just invented from thin air a few years ago.

  • Steven Witmer

    The Medieval Warm Period was largely regional – while many areas of the globe experienced warmer periods over several centuries, some areas did not experience the warming at the same time or to the same degree, and some areas did not experience warming at all or were even cooler. The central Pacific, for example, was cooler than normal at the same time. The cooler regions pretty much counterbalanced the warmer areas, meaning that on average, there was no global warming.

    Here’s something to ponder — regional does not equal global.

  • charles

    He also models the atmosphere as a single layer. It’s not.

    Everyone I know uses ten meter layers. one times they use single because of simplicity but I am sure you know that!

  • charles

    What I can’t find is what temp is the 15 micron band etc. Don’t most frequency-wave length as a specific have a specific temperature?

    Also I think more energy is transmitted by collisions as there are 100,000″s more collisions near surface than there is an IR ,absorbing and re emission. Ln the same time Frame.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    Did you not read the header ?

    Climate change falsehood [Archive] – Page 2 – Boat Design Forums

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    :) What’s to understand ? Saying you have knowledge that you cannot have is simple…

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    I agree. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : named long before any putative proof it could predict the future was in the public eye.

  • Scott Sinnock

    Absolutely!!! Let’s control access to information so only the “truth” is given to people. Ignorance and, worse, falsehoods are threats to democracy and should not be allowed. Democracy and scientific truth trump the first amendment.

  • Anonymous

    Where do the non-GHGs get their energy from? A big part of it is collisions with GHGs. So added energy absorption by GHGs will warm the rest of the atmosphere. Regardless of how many collisions there are how did the number change? In order for warming to occur there must be more energy to cause more movement and thus more collisions. That can’t happen as a trend, on it’s own, for 150 years. GHGs are adding energy because there are more of them.

    temp of 15 micron? Irrelevant

  • Anonymous

    Simple yes, but it misses the many times 50% goes up and 50% goes down. That’s what he says happens and he also makes several other physics errors that I’ve mentioned that are obvious even to the rank amateur. I think there is a reason he doesn’t try to publish in real journals where people know what they are doing.

  • Publicola

    Republican climate scientist Dr. Barry Bickmore is not advocating censorship. As you can see if you go to his blog, Dr. Bickmore is instead fighting anti-science propaganda with actual science.

  • Scott Sinnock

    You rightly say “decade-scale surface and atmosphere temperature trends are too short with respect assessing the man-made global warming (AGW) signal”

    Therefore, I assume you will admit that decade long patterns of storm intensity are insufficient for seeing evidence of the same AGW “signal”, let alone individual floods or hurricanes.

  • Scott Sinnock

    You are right, he, at least in the quote you provided, does not advocate censorship, he just called people who disagree with him traitors.

  • charles

    Personally I think emission temp of a wave and freq to be important. How hot is 210K or 220K?

    “However, satellite measurements of Earth emission data shows that the IR photons absorbed by CO2molecules are not re-emitted before the energy gained is redistributed by collisions with other non-greenhouse gas molecules. We know this because the re-emission of radiation does not occur at a black body temperature of 288K and instead occurs at a black body temperature of about 210 to 220K characteristic of general air temperatures at altitudes from 10.5 km to 22 km. [See Fig. 8.3 of A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, First Edition, Grant W. Petty, Sundog Publishing, Madison, Wisconsin for such measured spectra and observe the CO2absorption region of 15 micrometers wavelength. This is a weaker emission line than the primary emission line, so it is less subject to saturation at a lower altitude. The main emission line will not have its final emissions into space from a lower altitude, but will be higher if anything. There is a similar spectrum in Fig. 25 of the Ermecke paper.]“”

  • Paulii

    It is sad to see how “political” science has become. Both political sides have become so deaf, insulting, and appear so entrenched as to make the topic verboten as it becomes impossible for a layman like myself to gain any understanding from either camp.

    Add to that new developing nations much larger than the US (China, India to name 2) and I cannot hold out much hope that there is really much that can be done.

    So I hope the “science” evolves, as I fear that if they are right, we don’t have a chance of fixing it in time due to human self interest.

    I will say this, calling names, insulting those who disagree, demeaning, and arrogance certainly are not going to sway anyone in either direction.

  • Anonymous

    Your red green marble model isn’t even close. In fact it’s so far off I increasingly doubt you have an understanding of even the basics of the greenhouse effect. With the GHE there is a source adding red marbles. There is also something stopping them from leaving. (they all want to) Now at first it would be at balance (those escaping would equal those entering)and the number leaving would equal those arriving but then we turn up the power to the machine stopping them from leaving and now it starts sending more back. Since the number entering remains constant this means the number of red marbles increases.

    Yes convection and evaporation play an important role in energy movement in the atmosphere. However without the greenhouse effect there would be no evaporation of convection as the Earth would be a frozen ball. The three things (convection, evaporation, GHE) exist alongside each other. A change is the GHE has nothing to do with the others except altering them after the fact.

    BTW, the IPCC doesn’t make calculations they just review and summarize the peer reviewed literature that does. The blog on mistakes is just another example of mathturbation. If Taguchi had any confidence in it he would have it published. It would be a massive.challenge to the current understanding if true so why is he only putting his calculations on a blog?

    Climate scientists are well aware of Beer-Lambert. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/

    It tells me a lot that you would use Taguchi’s blog post to bet “John” is right when you haven’t even read it. Especially when Taguchi hides his work from scientists who really understand atmospheric physics.

  • Anonymous

    Just noticed this one. Some of which has been answered. You graph shows incoming solar not the back radiation of the greenhouse effect.

    “Correct me if i get my number wrong. AFW adds 30 billion tons,…”

    Your numbers are essentially correct. Nature (land and sea) emits much more CO2 than man BUT (and that’s a big but) it also absorbs all that it emits. In fact the annual growth in CO2 averages out to be about 45% of our emissions. This means nature absorbs all it emits plus a little extra. Bottom line, if it wasn’t for out emissions there would be no CO2 growth.

    “co2 would increase anyway as the planet warms by release from the oceans….”

    Henry’s Law is preventing this. Henry’s law says that gases partial pressure will remain proportional and so the increase in CO2 is pushing more CO2 into the ocean. This is also a big problem as the resulting ocean acidification is threatening the base of the ocean’s food chain. While in the past warmer oceans emitted CO2 this was because they were the source of the CO2. With us driving up CO2 levels the above means CO2 is still being net absorbed by oceans. A concern is that this might stop and then CO2 could really start rising even faster. If that happened we would be in big trouble.

    Governments don’t always have a good record but they’ve also done great things. Carbon trading itself is just one possible solution. I’d implement it but I’d go with an at the well head carbon tax first. Easier to implement and operate.

  • Publicola

    Pushing anti-science propaganda is not mere “disagreement”.

  • Scott Sinnock

    No more than pushing scientific propaganda.

  • Publicola

    With respect to established climate science as presented by Dr. Bickmore, the IPCC, and/or the National Academy of Sciences what scientific “propaganda” are you talking about, exactly?

  • Scott Sinnock

    You named it.

  • Publicola

    Gotta love (ok not really) your substance free hand-waving / mud throwing.

    Put up or shut up, Scott.

    [ Que: more pathetic cries of "censorship" from Scott, and still zero substance to "support" his empty "pushing scientific propaganda" crapola. ]

  • Scott Sinnock

    Such vitriole. I must have touched a nerve, sorry.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    :) You are one of those ‘people’ I expect. Please do. There is more than one prominent person who understands precisely how shouting down dissent is not the same as making a coherent case. One of many professors – and one who has paid for the priviledge – who does not agree with Chicken Little ‘analysis.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Rancourt And an overview of current views as per the Senate http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/18/u-s-senate-hearing-climate-change-its-happening-now/ It makes one think not much has changed Hot and Cold Media Spin : Global Warming Journalism http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    Now,now,Scott. It is bad form to openly disagree with the premise that ‘settled science’ represents best analysis – rather than constituting an oxymoron. It is almost as rude as comparing Galileo’s suppression by the church with the epithet ‘denier’ as applied by those who wish to evade the rigors of scientific method – discussion and contention – by insistence peer review by true believers excludes the requirement for data to match reality : a hard call when evaluating prophecy, which means any proof is inaccessible.

  • Publicola

    Not “vitriole” [sic] – just calling out your anti-science propaganda for what it is.

    The observant reader will also notice that you still haven’t “supported” your anti-science propaganda with actual substance.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “Anti-science” propaganda : that would require that there was actual science under discussion – rather than the rhetorical contrivance of Appeal to Authority. But the ‘propaganda’ charge is interesting : a classic case of projection.

  • Publicola

    You really want actual science, opit? In which case read and learn:

    ——————————————————–
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences

    “Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.”

    From “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (2010)

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

  • Scott Sinnock

    Exactly

  • Publicola

    The science is out there if you want to learn it. For example the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has put out extensive reviews of the science.* Most lay people however don’t understand the science enough to be able to easily see what is anti-science propaganda, an unfortunate truth that anti-science propagandists – such as for example the Heartland “Institute” anti-climate science PR firm – exploit. It takes a lot of time and effort to understand the science well enough to be able to easily see through that propaganda, though as a rule said propaganda never comes from reputable scientific organizations.

    ———————————————————-
    * U.S. National Academy of Sciences

    “Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.”

    From “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (2010)

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

  • Publicola

    ” ‘settled science’ … constitut[es] an oxymoron.”

    Meanwhile, back in the world of actual science:

    ———————————————————
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences

    “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

    From “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (2010)

  • Scott Sinnock

    You correctly write, “The observant reader will also notice that you still haven’t “supported” your anti-science propaganda with actual substance.”

    Ditto. This is not the place for academic articles or even the Excel files that back them up. This forum, as almost all, is but expressions of opinions “supported” by selected “facts” usually reported to each of us who “use” them from at least third hand sources from the “scientist” who collected the data.

    Guilty as charged, in terms of the “actual substance” of my comments, but not in terms of their being “anti-science”, with which I have some familiarity. But you are right in pointing out that we all are, I am at the level of conjecture based on our selected authorities of “truth”.

  • Publicola

    The observant reader will also notice that you still haven’t “supported” your anti-science propaganda with actual substance.

    As with innumerable other global warming “skeptics” you’re just blowing smoke, Scott.

  • Publicola

    The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming (AGW) theory is out there, but as with Evolution “skeptics” (aka “creationists”) you global warming “skeptics” refuse to acknowledge that said overwhelming body of scientific evidence exists.

    Here is an overview of the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting AGW theory:

    ———————————————
    U.S. National Academy of Sciences

    “Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere… These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.”

    From “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (2010)

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

  • Publicola

    You are apparently confused on multiple levels here, Scott:

    1. When I stated that “decade-scale surface and atmosphere temperature trends are too short with respect to assessing the man-made global warming (AGW) signal” I was saying that in reference to the global surface and satellite temperature records wherein decade-timescale factors such as El Ninos are not statistically controlled for, and I was moreover referring to timescales of a decade, not multiple decades. 3 decades, for example, is plenty of time with respect to assessing the AGW signal in the un-”controlled for” temperature record, and said AGW signal shows a clear global warming trend over that time period.

    2. With respect to for example hurricanes, per a who’s who of U.S. hurricane experts there is not enough data to reliably assess the impact of global warming over the past century on hurricanes. That said per the same experts global warming is expected to increase the severity of hurricanes.

    3. While assessing the impact of global warming on individual events is quite difficult, per research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature some recent events including a flood in England can be attributed primarily to global warming.

    Hope this helps.

  • Publicola

    The science is out there if you want to learn it. The problem is that there is a lot of anti-climate science propaganda out there that is difficult for the average lay person to easily spot; easily spotting such propaganda can take months of climate science research.

    A good place to start is with the National Academy of Sciences, which is perhaps the most prestigious scientific body in the world.

    ——————————-

    National Academy of Sciences

    “Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere… These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.”

    From “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (2010)

    http://www.nap(dot)edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

  • Publicola

    “‘Anti-science’ propaganda : that would require that there was actual science under discussion”

    Spoken just like an evolution “skeptic” (aka a creationist) who ignores the overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence supporting evolution; you are ignoring the overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming (AGW).

    —————————————————-
    National Academy of Sciences

    “Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere… These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.”

    From “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (2010)

    http://www.nap(dot)edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

  • Publicola

    The observant reader will notice that you still haven’t “supported” your anti-science propaganda with actual substance.

  • Scott Sinnock

    I see this is Publicola’s forum to rant. I tried now and then to get a word of my own rants in edgewise, but apparently he (or she) doesn’t read well even then.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “Spoken just like an evolution “skeptic” (aka a creationist) who ignores
    the overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence supporting evolution” Straight out of the catalogue of pejorative terms and innuendoes : skeptic = denier = creationist. When you don’t have anything, use slander. Congratulations : scientific evidence that cannot be shared might as well not exist. Nor is it less than partisan rather than thoughtful to be wailing about how unreasonable people are not to ‘believe’ ( not know ) something because it is a policy position sensible in a polluted public common : a condition you allege strongly yourself and demonstrate as well.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    The observant reader will notice that you still haven’t “supported” your scientism propaganda with actual substance.
    ( What’s sauce for the goose, etc. )

  • Publicola

    So sorry you seemingly have such debilitating reading difficulties, Opit – I refer you to the National Academy of Sciences’ “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” report that I linked to above.

  • Anonymous

    Sadly, while most of what’s above is absolutely true, the article engages in some of the same exaggeration and deception and ad hominem attacks they accuse others of, and omit any facts that undermine their points

    As an example, the oft-quoted “97% consensus” is bogus, the numbers based on just a handful of respondents rather than the “thousands” often claimed. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 Certainly a majority of climate scientists believe humans have contributed to global warming, but it’s nowhere near “97%” and a healthy debate rages in the climate science community as to the amount of anthropogenic contribution, the mechanisms, potential remedies, etc.

    As another example, although the long-term trend is undeniably up, there is genuine scientific debate on the meaning of the 17-year pause in warming. It’s not just “cherry picking by deniers” as Dr. Trenberth very well knows – the variance from model projections is quite large, and that’s the real story, especially in a world where these models are being used by some to project alarming Year 2100 temperatures and sea levels that simply aren’t supported by observed increases.

    As a third example, Point #7 above fails to note the Medieval Warm Period or the highly-embarrassing withdrawal of Dr. Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph from UNIPCC reports (which failed to show the MWP), after egregious statistical errors were discovered in his modeling.

    None of this means the earth isn’t warming today or that humans aren’t causing it. But to dismiss all skepticism with sneering columns like this is a political endeavor, not a scientific one. It also reeks of insecurity. “Consensus” is the antithesis of real science; skepticism is the very foundation of the scientific method.

  • John

    The irony here is this article uses no scientific data to back up its claims, but instead relies on the appeal to authority fallacy. The author also ignores the mountain of data and evidence contrary to AGW that was collected by other reputable and published scientists, something he accuses the skeptics of doing.

    The fact is there is a mountain of evidence, lack of supporting data, misinformation, and political motivations on both sides of the argument. Therefore, any true scientist must remain a neutral skeptic.

  • Publicola

    Christopher Crowder’s papa a generation ago, with respect to the smoking-causes-cancer “debate”:

    “Decades [of lung cancer data] are insufficient sample sizes when compared to MILLIONS of years. Your argument fails.”

    Science denier “logic”: stupefying the general public for generations.

  • Invasive Evasion

    A person who corrupts and destroys the democratic process for personal gain is a traitor, yes.

  • Invasive Evasion

    Putting your sarcasm aside, do you really think a nation can survive with ignorant citizens who believe the opposite of what is true? Do you think that lies are not destructive to democracy?

  • Invasive Evasion

    An appeal to authority is a “contrivance” only if the authority lacks credibility. If the consensus of climate scientists is not in your mind a credible source, then who is? Your authority would be a lobbyist hired by Exxon? A right wing ideologue on a blog site? A scientific illiterate on talk radio?

  • Invasive Evasion

    Thank you for your posts, and your efforts.

  • Scott Sinnock

    I think lies are destructive to honest discourse. I think also that it is a lie to say people who may disagree about some “facts” like “climate change” are ignorant, misinformed liars. Some who disagree may be liars, but lumping all together is a common polemic technique of lying. Yes I think lying is destructive to the ideals of democracy based on honest and respectful discourse among disagreeing parties.

  • Ray Cote

    So who are these people who deny that climate science exists?

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “”Advancing the Science of Climate Change” The very title is that of an agenda.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “as with Evolution “skeptics” (aka “creationists”) you global warming
    “skeptics” refuse to acknowledge that said overwhelming body of
    scientific evidence exists.” Or perhaps we both know what science is about – and it is not about accepting unproven hearsay evidence. In the case of evolution there is at least proven use in designer organisms – though they may be a rash practice. In the case of ‘climate science’ all we have managed is to try and discredit meteorology because its basis of analyzing recurring patterns is incompatable with the idea that we have a crisis of changing conditions – the fault of man. If you were honestly so hot to prove that there would be less discounting of information about weather modification.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions,
    and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the
    face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative
    explanations.” So who did the debating if it wasn’t with people who were unconvinced that predicting the future was a valid scientific exercise ?

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “Science denier” allegations : throw mud when you have no other ammunition. Fail.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    ” consensus of climate scientists” First, you would have to establish there is a credible ‘climate science’- which is why a new field needs to boast its authority…because it sure can’t proclaim its accomplishments.
    In fact, everything I have seen revolves around scaremongering about the costs of energy use…and tends to ignore real pollution issues in favour of soothsaying unknowable future disaster.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    You mean for the opportunity to blow $50 on a document listed as an exercise in advocacy ? Your astute choice of a ridiculous proposition is noted.

  • Publicola

    Um, only the deeply science-illiterate are “unconvinced that predicting the future is a valid scientific exercise.”

    Good luck with that basic science comprehension thing.

  • Publicola

    Are you someone who believes that “Decades [of lung cancer data] are insufficient sample sizes when compared to MILLIONS of years,” with respect to determining that smoking causes cancer, Opit?

    If so, again good luck with that basic science comprehension thing.

  • Publicola

    Uh, yeah: the agenda of advancing science.

  • Publicola

    Got trolling? Yup.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    You won’t be instructing any basic comprehension at all….especially in reading or staying on topic.

  • Robert Riversong

    The scientific consensus on AWG is, in fact, much higher than 97%, as every study of peer-reviewed articles has proven.

  • joseppi7

    The only way to stop global warming is to de-populate the planet. Maybe there’s a mad scientist working on that somewhere.

  • Anonymous

    I think Monsanto is working on this, using GMO foods.

  • Publicola

    Science denier irony – it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

  • Publicola

    With respect to addressing the global warming threat the goal isn’t to “stop” global warming, but instead to mitigate it.

    Got any more straw men?

  • Publicola

    “I think also that it is a lie to say people who may disagree about some ‘facts’ like ‘climate change’ are ignorant, misinformed liars.”

    Straw man – Dr. Bickmore did not say or imply that.

    One need not be an “ignorant, misinformed liar” to deny the scientific fact of climate change: one can instead be a knowing liar, or instead be ignorantly and unwittingly propagating a lie.

    On a related note climate change is a fact, and to say or imply otherwise is to deny science and to propagate a lie. Propagating a lie is, as you say, destructive to honest discourse.

  • Scott Sinnock

    I agree climate changes. We have known that at least since geologists recognized the ice ages in the moraines. Some may still say it does not, I ignore them. There are lots of fanatics in the world who believe lots of fantastic things. To me the issue is — So how is the climate changing? and by how much? and, perhaps even more importantly, so what? what do we do about it? where do we best spend our money to either accommodate or stop it? Will anyone benefit like farmers in Saskatchewan? and how do we trade off any such benefits against potential increased flood loses? (by a small percent I must add), etc. etc. The science that climate IS changing has been known for a long time, the science of what the climate will be is far from resolved. And the politics about what to do, if anything, about any of the open scenarios is as contentious as all similar political debates.

  • Publicola

    As part of his Gish Gallop* Jan Lindstrom made these false and misleading claims:

    “SkS have a real problem when dealing with the global temperature statis reaching its 18th year soon.”

    Back in the world of real science per overwhelming scientific evidence the globe has continued to warm over the past 17+ years, incessant anti-science propaganda that would have one believe otherwise notwithstanding.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/
    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    “the IPCC… has lately actually lowered the climate sensitivity in AR5.”

    The IPCC’s range for climate sensitivity in its 5th and latest report, AR5, is exactly the same as it was in its first three reports: 1.5 to 4.5 C.

    The IPCC’s 4th report had raised the lower limit of that range by 0.5 C; the 5th report returned it back to 1.5 C. The upper limit of the climate sensitivity range has remained the same across all IPCC reports: 4.5 C.

    On a related note most mainstream climate scientists put their “best guess” for climate sensitivity somewhere in the middle of that range, between 2.5 and 3.5 C.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/

    “More and more scientist, both inside and outside the field, wants the Climate Science to be assessed in much the same way as all other science branches, i.e without the appeal to authority.

    Back in the world of real science, climate science is and always has been assessed via the scientific evidence, not appeal to authority.

    “There was nothing in this article really backing up the various claims beside that ‘we should trust the scientists’.

    Patently false. For example the article provides evidence demonstrating that the globe has warmed over the past 17+ years, your parroted, science-denying claim that would have one incorrectly believe otherwise notwithstanding.

    ————————-
    * “The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

  • Publicola

    American Geophysical Union (August 2013)
    ————————————————————————-

    Human-Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

    Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

    Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase.

    Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

    Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences…

    Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels…

    Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable.

    ————-
    Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    the title is clear…’advancing the science’
    This is not helpful is one is less interested in representations that man is responsible than in proof this is the case…with appropriate calculation and likely a plan of action based on sound science. To say such is thin on the ground is to ignore claims of such when they are not clearly supported by process. Greenhouse gas static models in a non closed system open to space and heated from below with water all over the place in various states and action should give one much pause as to whether sufficient allowance is being made for changing dynamic processes – which are neither assuredly completely known, understood nor measured.
    I comprehend uncertainty and ignorance no matter how heartily magnificent wisdom is proclaimed. The church does enough of that representation for all of us.

  • Publicola

    You haven’t bothered to read the science at the link I provided for you, have you.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    I see. According to you, predicting the future is a scientific exercise. I read a genre known as speculative fiction for years and recognize the hallmarks. Declaring you know the future has its names too : gullibility, delusion, insanity, prophecy, religion… Science does not appear on the list.

  • joseppi7

    Straw men like a few billion Asians who want middle class creature comforts? Mitigate that. If warming leads to more warming “mitigating” it by dropping CO2 to previous high US levels is functionally meaningless in world that continues to overpopulate and overuse resources.

  • Publicola

    “If you really are interested in the science…”

    I am. So much so that I studied the science in detail while getting my masters and PhD degrees in the environmental sciences.

    What is your (evidently non-existent or at best very weak) scientific education that makes you somehow think you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences?

    “read this… it contradict most of your claims.”

    Lie #1.

    No it doesn’t, and if you actually understood what you were talking about here then you too would know that.

    BTW your purported “highly merited scientist” – Judith Curry, who is one of the relatively very few “skeptics” who is actually a climate scientist – is a discredited joke, as demonstrated for example here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/comment-page-4/#comment-181895

    “there has been NO statistically significant warming for almost 18 years on the 95% confidence level. Your graphs show that very clearly.”

    Lie #2.

    You either didn’t even bother to click on the 3 links that I provided for you or you are so science illiterate and uneducated in what you are talking about that you don’t understand what those links say.

    And/or, you are intentionally lying.

    The first link shows that per NASA data the surface temperature of the globe has continued warm over the past 17+ years.

    The second link shows that when external factors (El Nino/La Nina, the 11-year solar cycle, and volcanic activity) are controlled for surface and lower-atmosphere global warming has continued at the about the same statistically significant rate over the past 3 decades, “even for the time span from 2000 to the present.”

    The third link shows data indicating that the oceans have continued to warm at about the same rate over the past 3 decades as well, and if you were even marginally educated in what you are talking about you too would know that over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans.

    Which is to say those three links that I provided for you explain the purported “statis”, your factually false and otherwise misleading rhetoric that would have one believe otherwise notwithstanding.

    Wittingly or otherwise you are a fake “skeptic”, Jan.

  • Publicola

    We can’t “drop” CO2 to previous levels. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise until we substantially mitigate CO2 emissions, at which point CO2 levels will not increase as quickly or ideally level off, but they will not drop (for the foreseeable future).

    Perhaps you are instead referring to lowering CO2 emissions? If so, substantially lowering CO2 emissions is in no sense “meaningless” – the less CO2 we put into the atmosphere the less the globe will warm.

    Moreover when cost-effective non-fossil fuel energy resources are substantially developed they will be adopted by developing countries too.

  • Publicola

    “According to you, predicting the future is a scientific exercise.”

    Anyone who is basic science literate knows that with respect to physical phenomena predicting the future is indeed a scientific exercise.

    Apparently you Opit are unaware, for example, that science is quite good at predicting future solar eclipses.

    Again good luck with that basic science comprehension thing.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    That’s rich. You want to note the ability to predict future events via orbital mechanics and use it as a broad argument on the ability of science as a generic term to predict the future regardless of the known fraudulent claims made routinely in say, drug use, where private companies hawking proprietary ‘cures’ defeat the ability of the public to use natural pharma to heal themselves via legislation and advertising. And in that case also, government is complicit in enforcing laws against people freely choosing self medication via the misnamed ‘war on drugs’ i.e. war on the public accompanied by false representations of harms done by the practice, which interferes with drug company controls.
    There is no equivalent to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition for the people who say instead that taxing energy is not an exercise in virtue, but in removing the gift of Prometheus from the common…especially poor people.

  • Publicola

    You’re a funny guy(?), Opit. You’ve repeatedly mocked the notion that science can be used to predict the future, and when I provide you with a very simple example demonstrating that your mocking is ridiculous science-denying crapola you come back with a word salad that doesn’t undermine the fact that science can indeed be used to predict the future, and that science is moreover used to accurately predict the future on a regular, routine basis.

    Good luck with your neanderthal, anti-science mentality.

    “Declaring you know the future has its names too : gullibility, delusion, insanity, prophecy, religion… Science does not appear on the list.”

    - Opit, anti-science propagandist

  • moderator

    Publicola and Opit,

    You have both made your points of view quite clear. Before this gets personal, I believe that it is time to agree to disagree. Please move on without any further comments.

    Thanks,

    Moderator

  • moderator

    opit and Publicola,

    You have both made your points of view quite clear. Before this gets personal, I believe that it is time to agree to disagree. Please move on without any further comments.

    Thanks,
    Moderator

  • Cultiv8r

    Why are Climate Change skeptics so arrogant as to think that just because they are skeptical, we should ALL willingly abandon the Precautionary Principle?
    That mindset & philosophy is the pinnacle of hubris, selfishness & narcissism.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    And you have evidence to support this theory?

    I might just as well say that all pro-agw “evidence” is sheer propaganda from the governments who have a vested interest in taxation based upon carbon emissions. Just because it’s plausible, doesn’t make it true.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “As part of his Gish Gallop* BillyBilly made these false and misleading claims”

    Pot meet kettle. It is entirely ironic, that agw proponents will refer to anyone who cites many opposing links, and then cite many of their own links that are just as misleading.

    “Actually multiple peer-reviewed studies support the 97% estimate.”

    While this is true, this is like saying that 97% of the bird-shit studying scientists are certain the avian flu is going to cause a world catastrophe. A. These scientists are not the majority of the scientific community. B. These are the scientists that have a vested interest in continued funding from governments and government agencies that have a vested interest in carbon taxes and other forms of environmental taxes. So their jobs depend on bureaucrats who are funding these studies for more revenue.

    “Moreover every national science academy in the world and virtually every other reputable scientific organization with expertise on the subject also support the scientific consensus.”

    A. Argument from Authority fallacy, mixed with B. Association fallacy, and a tinge of C. Ad Hominem fallacy. You imply that any scientist, or scientific academy in the world that does not agree with agw is not reputable simply because they do not agree with what you consider reputable. Your idea of reputable is largely arbitrary, there is no logical reason to only accept your definition of reputable. (Other than to avoid being called “disreputable” by you).

    “Again the “Hockey Stick” is alive and well, relentless anti-science propaganda that would have one believe otherwise notwithstanding.”

    Ironically, you call this “anti-science” propaganda, despite the fact that those you call “scientists” denied there was any inaccuracies / problems in their methodology. Now they “fixed” their methodology, and are now claiming the mistakes were of no consequence. I question this form of science, where we are to accept the voices of those who have made mistakes above those pointing out those mistakes. Anyone skilled in mathematics can make their calculations look right on paper, yet there is no way that any of these “scientists” can demonstrate that their paper matches real life: There are too many variables, and they cannot even list all of them, let alone state that one or two are the cause of a problem.

    “Actually scientific consensus occurs when scientific evidence for a phenomenon is so overwhelming that an overwhelming percentage of scientific experts in a given field agree that said phenomenon is very likely real.”

    Hmm…. I’m pretty sure that isn’t a good way to go about determining what is “science.” Try maybe irrefutable evidence from repeatable experiments.

    “Real skepticism, however, does not entail rejection of scientific consensus without valid scientific justification for doing so.”

    Love the qualifiers there “real skepticism” and “valid scientific justification” – So in other words, you aren’t allowed to be a skeptic, unless they accept your views on how a skeptic should act, and have what you think is a valid objection to scientific consensus. Glad to see that in the past, science didn’t work this way, sad to see that in the future this is what will pass for “science.”

  • Gregg Braddoch

    Just because I for some reason cannot comment on Roberts, comment, I will simply reply to my own comment, and quote his.

    “If you can’t follow the mountains of scientific evidence or differentiate between science and government policy, then you don’t deserve a response.”

    lol, because you have parsed every study that has been turned out on climate change, and found them all to be correct by careful experimentation. Very nice ad hominem, but that is the usual treatment I get when asking hard questions.

    Ironically, all the “science” you wish to cite has been funded by governments, who’s governmental policy is to tax greenhouse gases and otherwise monetize the climate change debate. The precise details matter little, when the scientists who do this research depend on government funding to do their job, and the governments are funding this research to increase tax revenues.

    Or wait, are you saying good science can come out of research funded for profit?

  • Gregg Braddoch

    For CLIMATE scientists, whom are hardly the majority of the scientific community.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “Spoken just like an evolution “skeptic” (aka a creationist) who ignores the overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence supporting evolution; ”

    Nice ad hominem.

  • Publicola

    Actually your link in no way undermines the fact that of course science can correctly predict the future and moreover very often has, and that only the deeply science-illiterate would believe otherwise.

    You are familiar, for example, to innumerable correct predictions of solar eclipses, aren’t you?

  • Gregg Braddoch

    Good luck with understanding that only scientifically illiterate people predict the future.

    I comprehended your statement just fine, but you were unable to connect the dots because you lack common sense.

  • Publicola

    Gregg keeps pushing this anti-science ridiculousness:

    “only scientifically illiterate people predict the future.”

    Astrophysicists who predict when solar eclipses will happen, for example, are scientifically illiterate?

    Who knew. /sarcasm

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “Astrophysicists who predict when solar eclipses will happen, for example, are scientifically illiterate?”

    I’m talking about weather systems where there are unknown variables. Ask any climate scientist or meteorologist, and if they are honest, they will admit they don’t have all of the variables.

    Now, as far as astrophysics, the variables have been compiled and studied for centuries, so in those calculations, most, if not all variables are known.

    I guess you might say that the attitude that more conclusive studies should be done, and more of the variables isolated before predicting the future is “anti-science” – Doing actual science instead of claiming to know the future is “pro-science” – who knew? / Sarcasm.

  • Publicola

    You’ve moved the goalpost. Before we move on to your new goalpost can you admit that predicting the future is a valid scientific enterprise, and moreover that scientists often correctly predict the future?

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “You’ve moved the goalpost.”

    Oops. My Bad.

    “Before we move on to your new goalpost can you admit that predicting the future is a valid scientific enterprise, and moreover that scientists often correctly predict the future?”

    Science is based on prediction. A scientist analyzes data, forms a hypothesis, and then does tests to confirm their hypothesis. For simple subjects, like what happens to water when it is heated to the boiling point, this is enough to accept as scientific proof. For complex issues, such as AGW, or climate change, this is hardly enough.

    Which brings us back to your original comment, which I was answering:

    “only the deeply science-illiterate are ‘unconvinced that predicting the future is a valid scientific exercise.’”

    Which was a cheap shot at ‘opit’ for stating that scientists should not make grandiose claims about “knowing” the future of the planet based on a very shaky hypothesis of AGW, considering they cannot even claim to have proven that the variables (such as CO2) are the ’cause’ of Climate Change or AGW. (And before you start talking about ‘consensus,’ I will state that “consensus” is not a valid replacement for repeatable results and demonstrable conclusions, and further, there is no scientific test we today can use to demonstrate that the currently held ‘consensus’ on AGW has identified and isolated the correct climate change variables).

    Either way, your comments essentially amount to calling anyone who does not accept your view “ignorant” of science, so I think I am done talking with you. Have fun making argumentum ad absurdum comments by taking people’s words out of context.

    To spell it out clearly for you before you go: “Making predictions about the future that cannot be demonstrated conclusively, so that they must be made with a ‘consensus’ view rather than proof, is not a valid scientific exercise.” Thank you, have a nice day.

  • Publicola

    “To spell it out clearly for you before you go…”

    You may be running away from your anti-science crapola; I’m not going anywhere.

    “…Making predictions about the future that cannot be demonstrated conclusively…”

    Uh, no prediction can be “demonstrated conclusively” until after-the-fact.

    “…so that they must be made with a ‘consensus’ view…”

    As is the case with established scientific theories more generally, AGW is scientific consensus because the scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.

    “…rather than proof…”

    Did I mention that scientific theories are never proven?

    “…is not a valid scientific exercise.”

    Got any more anti-science straw men? Of course you do.

  • Publicola

    “…they even claim to have proven that the variables (such as CO2) are the ’cause’ of Climate Change or AGW…”

    Scientific theories are never “proven”.

    Any physical theory is always provisional… you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”

    - Dr. Stephen Hawking

    A demand for scientific proof is always a formula for inaction and delay, and usually the first reaction of the guilty. The proper basis for such decisions is, of course, quite simply that which is reasonable in the circumstances.”

    - S.J. Green, Director of Research for British American Tobacco, who finally gave up the ghost and admitted that demanding 100% scientific certainty before acting on what established science tells us is intellectually dishonest

  • Publicola

    First off AGW is an established scientific theory, not a “hypothesis”. You evidently do not understand the difference – look it up.

    Also Opit, like you, ridiculously repeatedly claimed that predicting the future is not a valid scientific exercise.

    To wit:

    Opit: “According to you, predicting the future is a scientific exercise. I read a genre known as speculative fiction for years and recognize the hallmarks. Declaring you know the future has its names too : gullibility, delusion, insanity, prophecy, religion… Science does not appear on the list.”

    Opit was spewing anti-science crapola there, just like you are here.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “Got any more anti-science straw men? Of course you do.”

    Disputing claims made by scientists is not anti-science. Nice non-sequitur – you like those, don’t you.

    “First off AGW is an established scientific theory, not a ‘hypothesis’. You evidently do not understand the difference – look it up.”

    Nice, and you are the one claiming that I make strawmen. I never said that AGW was a hypothesis. I’d like to reference your earlier insult of my reading comprehension, and state that one should not be allowed to critique other’s reading comprehension until they have some of their own.

    Scientific theories are never “proven”.

    Nice, bring out the technicalities, and arguments from authority. Technically, you are correct, however astrophysics, which you referenced earlier has been used to accurately predict planetary movements in our solar system for many years. In stark contrast, the AGW proponents have made many failed predictions, only to say that their calculations were off. (This begs the question, why do its proponents bias their data so? Maybe because all of their jobs are from government grants, which are given to them so that politicians can raise more revenues with “carbon taxes” and other nonsense).

    “You may be running away from your anti-science…; I’m not going anywhere.”

    I’m not running away at all, I’m merely done talking to you, considering that you keep repeating that disputing a scientific theory makes me “anti-science” – I’m not anti-freedom if I object to a certain viewpoint of what freedom is, and I’m certainly not anti-science if I disagree with a certain scientific theory. The only thing that could make me anti-science is if I disagreed with science being practiced.

    “As is the case with established scientific theories more generally, AGW is scientific consensus because the scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.”

    Overwhelming is an subjective term, and therefore some may see the evidence as ‘overwhelming’ but I do not. There are many scientists outside the field of “climate change” that also do not. (Maybe because they have no monetary incentive to do so).

    “Uh, no prediction can be “demonstrated conclusively” until after-the-fact.”

    I never realized that /sarcasm. Thankfully, climatologists, and most AGW proponents have been “demonstrated conclusively” to be wrong in their predictions on more than one occasion. (i.e. they predicted things that would happen by a certain date that did not happen).

    “Did I mention that scientific theories are never proven?”

    Yes, and I love that you like to use dualism to make other’s viewpoints look like they are wrong, however for more sane people, we can accept that astrophysics, and even basic physics are for all intents and purposes (at least in our current age) ‘proven’. AGW, not so, it has not been used for centuries to reliably predict physical interactions or planetary orbits.

  • Publicola

    Gregg Braddock told this blatant lie:

    “I never said that AGW was a hypothesis.”

    Really.

    What’s this about then?

    “…a claims about “knowing” the future of the planet based on a very shaky hypothesis of AGW…”

    There’s no point in “reasoning” with someone who lies about his own lies, is there.

  • Publicola

    “I never said that AGW was a hypothesis.”

    Really.

    What’s this about then?

    “…claims about ‘knowing’ the future of the planet based on a very shaky hypothesis of AGW…”

    There’s no point in “reasoning” with someone who can’t keep his anti-science rhetoric straight, is there.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “The scientific evidence that for example evolution is real (including the scientific fact that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor) and for example that cigarettes cause cancer is overwhelming too. Do you deny that the scientific evidence is overwhelming with respect to those established scientific theories too, or are you instead just inconsistent with respect to the established scientific theory of AGW?”

    It is not inconsistent to say that the evidence for any given theory is not overwhelming. I can say that I am certain the evidence for AGW is not even close to as “overwhelming” as say the evidence for evolution. (Although, like astronomy, again evolution has been refined for many years, while AGW has not)

    And on the claim that cigarettes cause cancer – I’d like to see the ‘scientific’ evidence. The best that has been done to date is a lot of fancy correlation studies, and we both know correlation != causation. There are also cases where the data does not fit the theory: Japan has a much higher smoking rate than does the US, yet has lower cancer rates all around.

    “Says a guy who uses absolutist rhetoric (e.g. climate scientists don’t have “all the variables”) to try to convey the false impression that AGW is not established science.”

    LOL. So isolating variables and demonstrating their influence on the greater equation is “absolutist” – but that is EXACTLY what science does. The problem with AGW is that it is accepted as dogma similar to church rhetoric and backed up with data, but as we know it, that is not science, but religious doctrine.

    “What, in your mind, would “prove” AGW? Do tell, and be specific with scientifically-testable criteria.”

    I’ll answer this one when you can tell me why AGW and the subsequent predictions are “good science” without saying “because all the climate scientists say so.”

  • Gregg Braddoch

    Nice word substitution.

  • Publicola

    “…I never said that AGW was a hypothesis…”

    Really.

    What’s this about, then?

    “…scientists should not make grandiose claims about ‘knowing’ the future of the planet based on a very shaky hypothesis of AGW…”

    Do tell, Gregg.

  • Publicola

    “on the claim that cigarettes cause cancer – I’d like to see the ‘scientific’ evidence.”

    Are you seriously denying the scientific fact that smoking causes cancer?!?

    You apparently however accept the scientific fact that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor – good for you. To echo your anti-science rhetoric back at you, however: “I’d like to see the evidence.”

    (As if the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution could possibly be presented in full in this type of forum, which of course it can’t.)

    ‘”So isolating variables and demonstrating their influence on the greater equation is “absolutist” – but that is EXACTLY what science does.”

    Let me guess: you aren’t a scientist, are you (that, of course, was quite obvious well before now).

    With respect to scientific theories including Evolution, smoking causing cancer, and AGW there is no “absolute” “proof” – did I mention that scientific theories are never “proven”?

    “The problem with AGW is that it is accepted as dogma similar to church rhetoric and backed up with data, but as we know it, that is not science, but religious doctrine.”

    The problem with you AGW “skeptics” is that you parrot fallacious anti-science propaganda like that when in reality you don’t know what you are talking about.

  • Publicola

    Me: “What, in your mind, would “prove” AGW? Do tell, and be specific with scientifically-testable criteria.

    “I’ll answer this one when you can tell me…”

    I asked you first, bucko.

    Put up, or admit that your “AGW isn’t proven” anti-science talking point is just that: a vacuous, sciency-sounding anti-science talking point.

  • Publicola

    Wow – you are even more mendacious than I had assumed that you were.

    Nice word substitution indeed, you liar.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “Put up, or admit that your “AGW isn’t proven” anti-science talking point is just that: a vacuous anti-science talking point.”

    LOL. I’ll wait for you to answer my question.

    Either way, you do not have sufficient information to prove that my “talking points” are “anti-science” – Again, disagreeing with one scientific theory does not make one anti-science.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “Are you seriously denying that it is a scientific fact that smoking causes cancer?”

    Are you seriously calling correlation studies “scientific fact”?

    “You apparently do however accept that it is a scientific fact that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor – good for you, although there you part ways with many of your AGW “skeptic” brethren.”

    Actually, not really. There are many people who are skeptical of AGW without being skeptical of evolution. You just like stereotypes because it’s easier to hurl insults at a stereotype.

    “(As if the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution could possibly be presented in full in this type of forum, which of course it can’t.)”

    No, but you could easily post me some links that are actual laboratory studies instead of trumped up correlation studies.

    “Straw man alert.”

    lol, yes, it is a strawman to point out that what you call “absolutist rhetoric” is actually the function of science. Notice how you do not deny that it is a function of science.

    “The problem with AGW ‘skeptics’ like you is that you parrot fallacious anti-science propaganda like that when in reality you don’t know what you are talking about.”

    That was a clever way to sidestep the issue of climate scientists having a pre-determined bias. The irony is, you probably berate the religious for this very same thing, yet see no conflict of interest where climate scientists must come up with science to justify their theories or lose funding.

    Anywho I hope you have a really sucky life, and live to be 100 years old. That way, when AGW doesn’t cause the end of the world as we know it, I can laugh at you.

  • Publicola

    Me: “What, in your mind, would “prove” AGW? Do tell, and be specific with scientifically-testable criteria.”

    “I’ll answer this one when you can tell me…”

    I asked you first, bucko.

    Put up, or admit that your “AGW isn’t proven” anti-science talking point is just that: a vacuous anti-science talking point.

  • Publicola

    Me: “Are you seriously denying that it is a scientific fact that smoking causes cancer?”

    “Are you seriously calling correlation studies ‘scientific fact’”?

    Oh look – more evasion.

    Are you seriously denying that it is a scientific fact that smoking causes cancer?

    Care to answer the question or are you going to keep evading it?

    Me: “You apparently do however accept that it is a scientific fact that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor – good for you, although there you part ways with many of your AGW ‘skeptic’ brethren.”

    “Actually, not really. There are many people who are skeptical of AGW without being skeptical of evolution.

    Actually you act as if you have basic reading comprehension problems again – I didn’t say or imply otherwise. Nice straw man attempt (not).

    “you could easily post me some links that are actual laboratory studies [re- smoking causing cancer] instead of trumped up correlation studies.”

    I could easily link to overwhelming scientific evidence that establishes the scientific fact that smoking causes cancer. So sorry that you apparently can’t look that up and understand it yourself – good luck with that.

    “lol, yes, it is a strawman to point out that what you call ‘absolutist rhetoric’ is actually the function of science.”

    Oh look – another straw man. Shocker.

  • moderator

    Publicola and Gregg,

    Time to agree to disagree. Please move on without any further comment. If you choose to ignore this request you will be unable to comment further on this, or any other article.

    Thanks,

    Moderator

  • moderator

    Gregg and Publicola,

    Time to agree to disagree. Please move on without any further comment. If you choose to ignore this request you will be unable to comment further on this, or any other article.

    Thanks,
    Moderator

  • http://billmoyers.com/ Anna

    A reminder from your moderator to please be civil when engaging in debates, or else you’ll be blocked.

  • Invasive Evasion

    That is completely false. A human population that stops using fossil fuels would also stop global warming.

  • Invasive Evasion

    Powering human civilization on fossil fuels is entirely a matter of choice. That choice is made because corporations seek to maximize profit with zero regard for morality.

  • joseppi7

    No, it’s literally the only way it can be done. If you want to starve most the world I’m down with that though.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve long felt that what is REALLY behind climate change “skepticism” is an excessive attachment to the contemporary suburban lifestyle, with its jumbo houses (much larger houses for families with 1 or 2 children than were built in the 1950s-60s for families with 4-5 children) on large lots, multiple cars, and long commutes. For some people, that lifestyle is their identity, and if anyone says, “Your way of life is unsustainable and needs to change,” they hear 1) “Your identity is built on a something that can’t last,” and 2) “You’re going to have to live in an urban coldwater flat and ride the bus with people you despise.”
    In most cases, they don’t even know the science behind the warnings of the climate scientists. All they want to hear is “Don’t worry. Your life can go on as before, and we’ll even lower your taxes and build more roads for you!”

  • Aaron Lynch

    It’s “Literally” the only way it can be CHEAPLY. China is not JUST building coal plants, they are in fact also building lots and lots (and LOTS) of renewables as well. The only real debate at all is whether or not ‘doing the right thing’ is more important that saving a few bucks in the near term, because we all **KNOW** that fossil fuels are fundamentally unsound, unsustainable AND hugely dangerous to the planet in hundreds of different ways.

  • mograph

    Axiom: nobody wants anything taken away from them.

  • Aaron Lynch

    Except for the LIE part of course. Calling truth and a lie both “propaganda” is a false equivalency of the highest order. They are in no way equal. AND… there is ONE news organization in the world that has actually gone to court to fight for the right to LIE to it’s viewers.

  • Aaron Lynch

    This is the crux of the issue for me. There is nothing good about fossil fuels except cost:benefit ratios in the short term. We should be treating US oil like the precious resource it is, and saving every drop we can because we **KNOW** that future generations will not have it. And we should be considering all of the costs associated with our current use including national security etc. The US likes to play chess one move at a time.

  • I ain’t right in the head

    translation:

    “If you don’t agree with me, you are beneath contempt and unworthy of my wasting time to refute you(because I can’t)”

  • Michael Donovan

    How about

  • Robert Riversong

    Translation: You’re NOT right in the head, have no argument, and hence stoop to willful idiocy.

  • I ain’t right in the head

    yet YOU of the vasty intellect, chose to copy my format… how bizarre indeed…

    I guess you and your big brain sure showed me… way to go…

  • Anonymous

    That may be part of it, but most people who feel this way aren’t in the position to propagate their ignorance. That is being driven by individuals and corporations who are making billions of dollars from the extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Without a well funded, concerted effort by plutocrats you wouldn’t have the level of skepticism that exists today.

  • Robert Riversong

    “vasty intellect” ??????????????

    There’s no need to point out what you are, as you do such an exemplary job of it yourself.

  • I ain’t right in the head

    oh bless you sir for even more pedantic condescension…

    were you not so grossly self-assured of your superior intelligence, it might have occurred to you that I am mocking you…

    sadly, your brilliance is like a sarcasm filter, not allowing even the tiniest molecule of a hint to squeeze its way in…

    please go back to worshiping at the Gaian altar… and fret no further about the pointless opinions of those unworthy of even being acolytes to your omnipotent wisdom… we are less than the dirt beneath your mighty feet… so your opinions and faith in agenda science is the only important thing…

    don’t forget to chant your evening canticles while facing the AlGore compound…

  • KnightBiologist

    You rule the internet today, thanks for trouncing another troll. But, as you’ll see, the Gish will keep on galloping in 3, 2, 1…

  • Bri

    This is the problem from my eyes. We give corporations billions to
    exploit our resources, provide them with tax breaks [loopholes] which
    increases their profit, change environmental laws, destroy scientific
    material, ratify FIPA, silence scientists and the PMO runs the Hill. All
    the while we charge almost nothing for exploration and mining permits
    handing them out like candy,corporations are taxed little, and royalties
    are small. They are protected from failure by these legislative
    changes, which have come about since Harper came to power.

    We need to tighten legislation and force corporations to take
    responsibility for their actions. Make them capable of failure. Force
    them to operate on a risk assessment which realizes much higher ethics
    and accountability. Tax them equitably and close loopholes in the tax
    laws. Charge fees and royalties which are appropriate for the potential
    profits they may garner.

    As the government continues to pander to the corporations which line
    their pockets they both make more money, and in turn can justify wages
    and bonuses for CEOs and other upper echelon employees; they can also
    pay more for the government; to buy laws which benefit their profit.
    They can spend more on propagandizing their perceived worth. It is how
    the one percent is getting richer and richer, and we are being lead
    along like the sheep we are, as they slowly feed us less and strip us of
    our clothes [metaphor]. It is a ‘free for all’ atmosphere and the
    unrestrained growth can not be sustained. Change must happen now. I fear
    for my Granddaughters future.

  • Jamie Lawson

    I assume that when you cite the first amendment, you refer to the guarantee of freedom of speech. That freedom has never been regarded as absolute. Just as it does not extend to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, it does not extend to disseminating known falsehoods in order to secure political or economic ends. For instance, it is illegal to advertise that your product cures syphilis when you know that isn’t true. Likewise it is illegal for you to pay a third party to write a “scientific” report claiming that your product cures syphilis in order to improve sales of your product.

    This is essentially what is happening. For instance, the Marshall Institute is the source of an alarming amount of climate change denial “science”. This is the same Marshall Institute that developed “scientific” reports denying the health effects of tobacco, and denying the existence of acid rain, and now, denying climate change. Their funding comes from big oil (Exxon/Mobil, the Koch brothers, etc.) and ultra-right-wing causes (i.e. the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, etc.). On former Executive Director of the Marshall Institute recently explained that while he was at Marshall, he was expected to toe a strict political line and “project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.”

    The Marshall Institute was built for the purpose of denying scientific consensus where that consensus ran counter to conservative and corporate themes.

    So in all seriousness, yes, scientific truth does trump the first amendment. The Framers certainly believed that and expressed that in the limitations they placed on free speech. This kind of speech meets two well understood classes of unprotected speech: 1) it incites illegal activity, for instance the “coal rolling” that has become common among uneducated white people, and 2) commercial speech that spreads inaccurate information about products people buy. As Neil Tyson said, the thing about science is that it’s true, whether you believe in it or not.

  • http://oldephartte.blogspot.ca/ opit

    “Figures don’t lie – but liars do figure.” Scientific truth is usable information proven by Scientific Method – and always relies on falsifiability and assault by contrary ideas regardless of purported .expertise.’ Worse, what is proven is often what is funded or what is desired to be heard. Ideally we should have a situation of rational and energetic discussion rather than hype about liars and a ‘you said-I did not’ childish ballyhoo which ignores the rich feast of source material in front of us. Scientists do not tolerate such misrepresentation in their own discussions, honouring a truth so basic it is used in court : both sides must be heard.
    This is completely avoided when positing a false frame of reference which ‘states’ both ‘sides’ of any discussion – ignoring the vast potential of irrelevance and complete disregard or even ignorance of significant information. For instance : how many realize that some astronomers consider the oceans might well be a regulator of planetary temperature, moderating it so as to accommodate an excess of solar input. The water cycle is not completely charted and understood – nor can it be when one considers the vastness of the oceans and chaotic energy involved even in thunderstorms.

  • Jamie Lawson

    Peer review is the essence of modern scientific method. And in this case, peer review is the filter through which climate change denial needs to be filtered. A climate change denier who was able to meet the threshold of peer review would get a huge career boost. So there is a great incentive in climate science to disprove even small nuances of global climate change. But none of the climate denial meets that threshold. All of the climate change denial is in non-peer-reviewed forums. This is basically like saying “we can’t do this scientifically so we’ll try to make our point non-scientifically but call it ‘science’ and hope people believe it”. This is unadulterated deception and that deception undermines your argument. “Both sides” have access to peer review. But only one side is able to meet the level of scientific integrity that peer review imposes. So it is false advertising for the other side to call it “science”.

  • Jamie Lawson

    Climate science is not a new field. Modern climate science is 200 years old; older than quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, or aerodynamics. It has some new tools, but has no reason to boast its authority. The facts are that 1) carbon and greenhouse gases are part of the natural environment and some amount of greenhouse gases are required to support life as we know it; 2) the oceans have the capacity to absorb excess greenhouse gases such as those produced by humans for thousands of years; 3) when the ability of the oceans to absorb and process those greenhouse gases has been exceeded, this causes a massive disruption in the climate, hence the “hockey stick” charts we’ve all seen; 4) the Earth has had a number of periods of climate change; 5) but all of human history has occurred in a period of high climate stability, and 6) all previous periods of climate change have coincided with extreme disruption and mass extinctions; 7) the most complex organisms have tended to do worse in mass extinctions. Microbes seem to do better. A mammal is unlikely to survive a significant gene mutation because there are so many genetic dependencies that all have to work. Bacteria are much more likely to survive serious mutations because they are much simpler, and it may require many mutations to survive drastic climate change.

  • Jamie Lawson

    Analogy is not ad hominem.

  • Jamie Lawson

    1) Peer review is not here say. The fact is that peer review is the yardstick of scientific credibility. And climate change denial just doesn’t measure up. There is precious little climate change denial in the peer reviewed literature, in spite of the multitudes of extremely well funded so called “scientific papers” denying climate change. On the other hand, there is a huge body of peer reviewed literature confirming climate change.
    2) Weather and climate are just different. Weather is chaotic and has very short bifurcation periods. Climate is not chaotic.

  • Jamie Lawson

    Peer reviewers are not “true believers”. Peer reviewers are subject matter experts. In the case of climate, peer reviewers are experts in atmospheric science or climate science, but not in “global climate change”. As such, a peer reviewer is just as open to climate change denial as they are to confirmation of global climate change…so long as the research supports it. The problem is that the research and the data overwhelmingly support the premise that human activity is responsible for global climate change.

  • Jamie Lawson

    Don’t try to teach a pig to sing.

  • Jamie Lawson

    …one does not need the values of all of the variables to make a (scientific) prediction. There are always error envelopes. In predicting when a comet will pass, enough of the variables are known that a very accurate prediction can be made. In predicting future climate, there is a larger error envelope, but enough of the variable values are known that pretty good estimates can be made.

  • Jamie Lawson

    But what you are proposing is only one kind of confirming experiment. There are many kinds of experiments that can be performed: can some other phenomenon not used as input to this result be predicted from it, and if so is that phenomenon consistent with the model? Etc. Physicists have been doing this for generations. Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg developed the electro-weak unification theory at a time when there were no colliders nearly big enough to produce the weak bozons that are the carrier of the electro-weak force. But all existing observations were consistent with the electro-weak theory, and so it was accepted science. Ditto for the Higgs bozon. For three generations, all of science believed in the existence of the Higgs bozon even though it could not be produced, let alone observed in the lab. They not only believed it, but it was the basis for all elementary particle theory that followed. But regardless of the importance of the Higgs and weak bozons in the structure of the universe, they do not really affect social policy so there were no science deniers and no coordinated political attempt to discredit Higgs. Global warming does affect social policy, and so there are deniers.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    “For three generations, all of science believed in the existence of the Higgs bozon even though it could not be produced, let alone observed in the lab.”

    Yes, however they were not suggesting that everyone in the world change their lives because they had a theory. There are also many more examples where theories became invalidated by new data after generations of belief by scientists.

    “Global warming does affect social policy, and so there are deniers.”

    Global warming (Climate Change) as a theory is DRIVEN by social policy. One of the major problems I have with it, is it coincides with extremist political views, and the research is largely funded by those with extremist political views.

  • Gregg Braddoch

    Analogy is not by itself ad hominem, however the two are not mutually exclusive, and in this case, it was absolutely an ad hominem, as Publicola does not in those words address my argument, but attacks my person.

  • Russ Klettke

    It may be an effective way, but it’s not the only way. And given how it’s rather drastic, it’s a proposal that will go nowhere on its merits (a plague such as Ebola might cause it to happen, but one hopes that government policies will not intentionally promote it).

    I believe in technological advances, and to a lesser degree in cultural change. We’re seeing greener sentiments and lifestyle changes with America’s Millennials, who are catching up to what older people in Europe say and do. As an American baby boomer, I believe that good changes are already here and growing. Note that meat consumption is down by about 12% on a per-capita basis in the U.S. since 2000. People are equating lifestyle with personal health, and as they do they begin to honor earth health as well.

  • Scott Sinnock

    I am a scientist. Do I get 10 or 100 or 2 votes for every vote a “non-scientist” gets?, And, do we restrict such “truth over free speech” idea to the “truths” that Mr. Tyson talks about? What is that “truth” with respect to climate change – the average of hundreds of computer model predictions each “equally likely” in its own right? The average expressing common ignorance as much, perhaps more than common knowledge? Very interesting legal proposal you make. Truth over freedom. Conformity over diversity.

  • Jamie Lawson

    …But all of the extremist political views are those of the deniers. In fact, climate change denial is definitively extremism. Therefore, those extremist views can be disregarded. The fact is that you don’t need to do a 100 year experiment to demonstrate human influenced climate change any more than you need to have a big bang to demonstrate the existence of a Higgs boson. And the many smaller, more localized experiments have sufficiently demonstrated human influenced climate change to a degree that overwhelming scientific consensus has resulted, just as the “standard theory” resulted in physics. And climate change, as a theory, is clearly NOT driven by social policy. It is the opposite. Social policy is driven by climate change theory.

    Some global climate change research is funded by extremists. But that research is climate change denial research, and it’s fake research. Many millions of dollars from extremist right-wing organizations like the Carthage Foundation and the Koch brothers goes toward fake institutions like the Marshall Institute that are in business to do fake research for corporate interests. But all of that research is climate change denial research. And when the “researchers” try to publish that work it fails to meet the standards of peer review. And they keep doing more of it and it keeps failing to meet the standards of peer review and the right-wing funding keeps coming in. And all of that makes it fake research. But the real climate change research, the stuff that does pass peer review, is not funded by by political extremists. It is funded by governments and universities all over the world. Those governments cover the spectrum politically. The Russians, the French, the Japanese, the Canadians, NASA. They have no political ax to grind. They are just trying to understand the Earth.

    And this confusion is at the root of the problem. You have right-wing corporatist money funding fake researchers at fake institutions with fake publications that lack peer review, and then the corporatists yell, “see, look at this contrary research!” The fake research just simply needs to be ignored.

    It is interesting to me that the same institutions that “published” fake “research” countering claims that tobacco causes disease are doing climate change denial today. This is a profound realization. Institutes were created by right-wing corporatists for the sole purpose of science denial where such denial supports corporatist objectives. What an amazingly unethical thing! Their job is to create enough noise to confuse the poor uneducated American masses so that the corporatists can accumulate more power. Meanwhile, just as real physicians in the 1960s and 70s were saying: “Nope! That’s all fake research. Don’t believe it. We wish it wasn’t true but we’ve run the numbers and tobacco kills”, real climate scientists today are saying: “Nope! That’s all fake research. Don’t believe it. We wish it wasn’t true but we’ve run the numbers and humans are responsible for climate change and climate change kills.”

  • Scott Sinnock

    By the way, lots of climate change denial is published, but it occurs in the other side of the “maybe” and “could be related” statements that tie current observations to models of future conditions. There are, of course, alternative to “maybe another indication of climate warming” and that is it “may not be an indication of climate warming”. I see a lot of maybe’s, perhaps that is the case.

  • Scott Sinnock

    Yes, saying something one knows to be false is not favored generally, but happens all the time. What about ignorance? One who says something false but believes it true? Do those “in the know” have a right or perhaps even responsibility to censure those who are more ignorant. I have a favorite saying, “Knowledge can recognize ignorance, but ignorance cannot recognize knowledge”. But even us ignorant think we know, do we get a vote?

  • Anonymous

    OK, but climate scientists are the only ones whose opinions count on this issue. I am a scientist who publishes in the area of business analytics. I would be the first to admit that my perspective on the “truth” of climate science claims is irrelevant, since that it not an area that I study. On the other hand, what I have read from both sides makes a very compelling argument for the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Chemists, physicists, biologists, or any other scientists’ opinions on climate change are irrelevant.

  • Scott Sinnock

    You say, “Modern climate science is 200 years old”, OK, I can bite. But what you are say8ing then is climate science is the physics of newton (actually 400 years old). So, I guess, any scientists from biologist to chemist to sociologist (nahhhhh, not the social sciences), and especially those with my training in earth science are all considered “climate scientists”; or, I prefer, just “scientists”.

  • Anonymous

    Remember, the Mad Max movies are training films , like those classic ” Duck and Cover” cinemamissives …

  • Scott Sinnock

    What limitations are you referring to when you say, “So in all seriousness, yes, scientific truth does trump the first amendment. The Framers certainly believed that and expressed that in the limitations they placed on free speech”

    What limitations do you speak of in the words, “Congress shall make no law ….. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, ……”?

    Perhaps state laws, ala the 10th amendment?

  • kpizzow

    The answer is kind of simple. Go into your garage. Start your car and stay in there for an hour or 2. So it’s clear pretty CO2 emissions are bad. So let’s cut them down any way we can and that’s a good thing. I feel confident in saying that out loud.

  • Anonymous

    It’s CO (carbon monoxide) not CO2 that kills you.

  • Bilbo Buggins

    Truth trumps lies dressed up as truths adorned in cloth torn from the original vellum upon which the framers penned those sacrosanct words.

  • Scott Sinnock

    The bard is reborn.

  • Jamie Lawson

    No. Climate science is climate science. When science became aware of ice ages–i.e. that climate on Earth did change–they began studying the causes, dynamics, and social effects of those changes. Awareness of the ice ages dates to about 1800. Fourier described and modeled the greenhouse effect in 1824. The first specific greenhouse gases (i.e. CO2 and CH4) were identified by Tyndall in 1864. In 1896, Arrhenius described the Greenhouse Law that relates the changes in CO2 levels in the atmosphere to changes in surface temperature, and predicted that human activity could produce a significant and sustained change in global climate. So basically, what you are saying is silly.

  • Jamie Lawson

    Actually, it’s the CO and not the CO2 that will get you if you run your car in a closed garage. CO2 emissions are normal. And we need some CO2 in the atmosphere to warm the Earth or we’ll all die. The question is how much CO2 is good and when does it become a bad thing? The big piece of the puzzle is the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2. They seem to be able to absorb about 2.5 billion tons of CO2 per year. Human activity currently produces about 4x that much CO2. If CO2 production is below the oceans’ ability to absorb, the system is pretty stable. When it gets above that, it gets unstable in a hurry. Hence the “hockey stick” effect everyone talks about.

  • Jamie Lawson

    The original comment was gin clear. Freedom of speech has never been an absolute. I do not wish to transform this discussion into one of Constitutional Law, but the Framers themselves regarded “speech” to refer to speech of conscience. Madison’s original draft read: “The people shall not be deprived or abridged their right to speak, to write, or to publish their _sentiments_” (emphasis added). Those sentiments are protected by the First Amendment. But there are several classes of speech that the courts have consistently held are _not_ protected by the first amendment. These include obsenity, fighting words, and lies. Lies include slanders, libels, commercial lies and other frauds. If you lie about a product in your marketing of it, that is consumer fraud. That speech is patently unprotected by the First Amendment. The right of the consumer to know the truth about the product they are buying trumps your right to lie about the product to make it look better. If you pay someone to lie about your product, that is also consumer fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud. If you pay fake scientists to write fake science reports in order to sell more of your product, you are also engaging in consumer fraud and conspiracy to commit consumer fraud. Again, that speech is clearly unprotected.

  • Jamie Lawson

    For someone who claims to be a scientist, you seem to know nothing of Science or of scientific consensus, or of peer review, or of democratic process or of Law for that matter. I too have my limits. I cannot teach a pig to sing. Signing out.

  • Anonymous

    So you are OK with fossil fuels as long as Chevron takes the risks, invests the money, does all the work, and you get the profits (they’re “our” natural resources, after all) and you also get to stop at the gas station and never worry about whether there will be gas today. But what if Chevron were to get out of the business and say “you do it?” Then some clown like Obama would be in charge of producing oil and gas.

    Oh, but that way is better. In fact, in Venezuela the peoples’ oil benefits the people, which is the way it should be, right?

  • Michael Peter

    “With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

    And how do they debunk this data? By saying this:

    ““There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time.”

    A lot of evidence. Not proof. They didn’t prove that this is false, they’re just saying they have evidence to explain it.

    In other words, climate alarmists are fine with cherry-picking data, that’s what the entire industry of “climate science” is doing, excluding some data for data they find more reliable. And what makes data more reliable? When it fits their religious moral crusade’s narrative, that’s when.

    This is why the IPCC comes out and says “We’re 98% positive there is warming caused by humans”. They say this because 98% is a big number and sounds close to being certain, but the scientific method does not yeild to “almost certainty”. It requires 100% predictable, reproducible SCIENCE. Before that, it’s just a theory.

    Humans are having some effect on the climate. The issue is HOW MUCH. And before we can answer that we need a lot more understanding of the climate. Before we have that understanding, it makes no sense at all to implement policies that will not only cause suffering to people the world over but will hamper the economic engines that will actually solve environmental problems.

    But progressive religious crusaders can’t accept this. I wonder why.

  • Mike Arienti

    Climate change science is not good science. It’s based on deciding what the result will be and then ignoring any research that disagrees with that result. That is not how scientific research is done. Try again.

  • Anonymous

    They just can’t stop. The sky is falling! Quick! Everybody give the government lots of money and power so they can stop it! Lol!

  • Anonymous

    You don’t read well, do you?

  • Roger Cotton

    Science is never settled. Thinking science could ever be “settled” is the epitome of Anti-Science.

  • Roger Cotton

    My position is simple: All those who want to pay higher taxes because they believe in this should go ahead and pay higher taxes.

    The rest of us are already taxed enough as it is.

  • Anonymous

    It’s entirely unlikely that you pay more in taxes than your SES peers decades ago. But, your idea sounds good and we’ll have to find a place you can go w/ no roads, lights, fire department, police force, buyer and seller protections, no schools, no mail, etc. Perhaps along the Florida coast a sub-society can be built with ‘your’ tax dollars & you can use some of your tax savings to build a house on stilts.

  • Scott Sinnock

    I know a lot about science and scientific consensus. I was chief scientist whose job it was to lead the world by proposing more expens8ive geoscience research to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The only consensus we could reach was “more research” i.e. “give us more money” They did for a while.

  • Scott Sinnock

    “That speech is clearly unprotected” — I agree, but the first amendment does not state the exemptions you list, the founding father did not list these limitations on free speech, petition, religion, and assembly; the courts invented them in direct contradiction to the first amendment. So yes, there are restrictions on lying, there should not be. Don’t make the “speech” illegal, make the “doer” pay for established consequences; sort of like the Robert’s court is saying about political contributions (another form of “Free Speech”).

  • Scott Sinnock

    “So basically, what you are saying is silly”. Yes, I thought so too, that’s why I said it. Smile a little, it might improve the look of your day, might not.

  • Scott Sinnock

    As opposed to the individuals and corporations (mostly) making billions off windmills now, expensive, heavy union construction windmills. Flour, Bechtelle, etc.

  • Anonymous

    Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Science is NEVER 100% certain of anything. And a theory is not a theory because it is “100%”, it is a theory because it has been tested with all available data. A theory can always be proven false – by simply running a test that disproves the results that the theory predicts. Simple. The fact that nobody, including Exxon Mobile with huge amounts of cash available to pay people to develop and perform such tests, is strong evidence (yes, not PROOF) that the theory is correct.

  • Anonymous

    So, what if we pay higher taxes and some of the predictions come true later – are you willing to pay back taxes so we can all be reimbursed for your ignorance, or do you expect us to pay for you?

  • Michael Peter

    Oh. OK. Well I have a theory too. My theory is that psychic, invisible moon people have taken over the minds of liberals and have caused them to act EXACTLY like fundamentalists Christians in their fervor, intolerance and judgment of others.

    Until such time as someone can PROVE that this is wrong we can all accept it as true!

  • Randy Breeser

    It could be emotional investment in an opinion. The following is pasted from DISCOVER magazine so don’t accuse me of plagiarism: “Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place. More than one study has shown these same results.” Of course this will likely be disputed for the obvious reason.

  • Publicola

    Michael Peter: “the scientific method does not yeild to “almost certainty”. It requires 100% predictable, reproducible SCIENCE. Before that, it’s just a theory.”

    drkent3 is correct – you don’t know what you are talking about. All you’ve done there is demonstrate how deeply science-illiterate you are.

    Scientific theories are NEVER “proven” with 100% certainty, and scientific theories ALWAYS remain “just” theories.

    ———–
    “Any physical theory is always provisional… you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.”
    - Dr. Stephen Hawking

  • Rene Scherger

    ‘Fossil Fuels’…lol! I hear those two words and I move on. I can’t take such people seriously as ‘science’ buffs.

  • Kirk Perry

    This whole discussion reminds me of the debate between evolution and young-earth creation. One side makes rational claims based on mountains of evidence, while the other side offers non-falsifiable claims inspired by a twenty-five hundred year old book. Let’s all become more science-literate!

  • Jamie Lawson

    No. That is not the case. To reiterate, while they were drafting the Constitution, the Framers regarded that speech protected under the First Amendment as the speech of sentiment. The fact that the Federalists themselves (the Framers) penned the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 less than a decade after they penned the Constitution, is added proof that they did not mean for speech to interpreted more broadly. To be sure, the Alien and Sedition Acts are not good law, but it indicates their limited intents, right or wrong. Regardless, they clearly never intended that freedom of speech would include the right to lie about products in advertising.

  • Jamie Lawson

    That’s a bogus argument. In a fair system, those who use resources pay the full cost of using the resource, including the cost to society.

  • joseppi7

    Right, making food 10x more expensive wouldn’t cause famine. You know nothing.

  • John Monteiro

    We all know they are here. Are extraterrestrials/interdimentionals here to help save this planet?

  • James Lucarelli

    Most who opine about climate change really have no clue about the complexities and just repeat talking points from those with whom they agree politically. The fundamental problems are twofold. A scientifically illiterate general public and the toxic mix of science, money and politics that corrupts and confuses the pure science

  • Unknown Soldier

    It might be noteworthy to point out that Europe is in decline, and is hopelessly mired in the antiquated political system of monarchs. Their current nanny state is only a warmed over version of feudalism, believing that the State is better equipped to make decisions for and take care of them. Kind of like a King Gore figure, where all us Peones must suffer while the political and ivory tower elites continue in boundless luxury. I wonder what the comparative income of government paid climatologists is vs the “Average American”. It must be at least 3 or 4 to one. We all know about the carbon indulgences Gore and friends can and have purchased. I bet they even feel good about themselves. They can now generate all the carbon of a coal plant and not feel bad.

    The fundamental lie is that those advocating control of CO2 emissions are pure as the driven snow. They want accolades, wealth, and control over you even more than the Exon Mobile board does. Far more. It makes them feel important to be in this “vital” crusade. Gives them purpose. And they don’t want you to be prosperous. “Let’s face it, this is about redistribution.”

  • Unknown Soldier

    Answer the POINT, Robert. The point is that all these data and theories supporting AGW are provided by governmental agencies. These governments, and their members, have far more to gain by acting on AGW theories than the private companies you wish to discredit would gain from their disproof. Power, wealth, control over “those little people” is a far greater inducement to shave the data and propagate unworkable theories.

    What’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander!

  • Unknown Soldier

    These data are all generated by government paid scientists, relying on taxes for their income. Less prone to error than privately paid? I think not.

    “You can keep your doctor!”

  • Robert Riversong

    It seems every two months someone is paid by the Koch brothers to insinuate more wanton idiocy into this conversation.

    The climate research comes from scientists – NOT government agencies – and every scientific society agrees with the findings, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of America, the American Chemical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences among many other international scientific bodies.

  • Publicola

    Yeah man, the Bush Administration was in on the Great Global Global Warming conspiracy. /sarcasm

    Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.

  • Scott Sinnock

    Eh! Who is John Galt?

  • Scott Sinnock

    When the precaution or prudency principle is carried to the “cut off your nose to spite your face” extreme, it needs questioning, even questioning is always needed about whether it is at that level yet or not. Who know, we might even be right, so “precaution” includes listening as well as shouting about the “safe, prudent” course we ALL must take, to avoid potential catastrophe, of course. So, it seems, taking any political position about what other people should do is arrogant hubris, selfish, and narcissistic. I plead guilty. Do you? Or do you adhere only to “truth”?

  • Jamie Lawson

    This is patently false. One of the biggest fakes of the climate change deniers is that a bunch of climate scientists will say whatever it takes to get their government grants. In fact, it’s just about the opposite. For the 8 years of the Bush administration, climate scientists were essentially told that they could only get their grants if they denied climate change. But they didn’t deny climate change. They stuck to their guns because the science told them that climate change was a real and present danger.

    The data that support this science are generated by all kinds of scientists, some working on endowments, some working on private grants, some working on government contracts and many working on mixed funds. What is more, climate scientists in all major countries in the world–Britain, Japan, US, Russia, Canada, all with very different interests–have arrived at pretty much the same conclusions.

    Also, climate scientists actually have a strong incentive to disprove climate change theories. If they could do that, it would be a huge boost to their careers. They’re not in collusion as much as they are in competition. But they can’t disprove the climate change theories because the science doesn’t support that.

  • Jamie Lawson

    1) Human activity unlocks carbon, mostly by burning dead stuff. It transforms carbon that was locked in the planet into gases like CO2, CH4, etc.

    2) Carbon gases have a signature ability to trap heat. Most sunlight that reaches the Earth reflects back into space. Some of it is trapped by greenhouse gases. In fact we need some of those greenhouse gases or we’d freeze. But the more carbon based gases in the atmosphere, the more of that energy that gets trapped in the form of heat, and if we get too much of it, too much of the sun’s energy gets trapped and the planet heats up; the greenhouse effect.

    3) To a point, the oceans can absorb the carbon, roughly 2.5 billion tons per year. For most of the time that humans have been burning hydrocarbons, the oceans were capable of absorbing the carbon we produced. But when you exceed the ocean’s ability to absorb, you get a greenhouse effect.

    4) As humans unlocked more and more carbon, they exceeded the ocean’s ability to absorb it. That’s why we get the “hockey stick” effect. So long as the ocean has excess capacity to absorb the carbon, humans can double the amount they release and double it again, and It’s still fine…and then suddenly when you exceed the ocean’s capacity to absorb, it’s not fine. You might think of it like traffic on the freeway. The freeway has a carrying capacity. And so long as the traffic level is below that carrying capacity everything is fine. But add just a few more cars and it all tightens down.

    5) Right now, humans release about 9 billion tons of carbon per year. So that hockey stick has a loooong handle.

  • Anonymous

    Precisely, this statement sums up the real underlying reasons we have such disagreement on this issue. Common sense says that of course man has some role in climate and also that the sun itself has much to do with climate. But to say that everyone agrees that Global Warming, now changed to Climate Change, is 100% man made is lacking important information and a balanced perspective.

  • Anonymous

    I am with you Roger let those who buy the lies pay these illegal taxes to the criminal class. I grow my own food, ride a bike and eat veges and fruits. All of you who drive your SUV’s consume the dead flesh of factory farmed animals and support Monsanto GMO foods you pay taxes if you want. Which would only add to the absurdity of your behaviors.

  • Anonymous

    Because most people who haven’t bought the argument hook line and sinker know that this is all about raising a global tax to fund the New World Order’s move to regulate us all into the dark ages.

  • Anonymous

    Only those corporations who are members of the club will be allowed to pollute to their hearts content. The rest of us will be blamed and made to pay.

  • Anonymous

    The only thing that I find clear in all of this back and forth name calling is that a lot of information has been falsified and changed to make some pretty outrageous statements about what we can expect in the future. What I am more concerned about is the present. What I find particularly interesting is that there is no mention of atmospheric, soil and water toxicity. These are in fact the most insidious and alarming datasets we should all be most concerned about.

  • Anonymous

    Absolute non-sense. Shameful idiosy.

  • Anonymous

    As long as you are not one of them, right! If not for all the hot air and hot potatoes being thrown around here the world would be a much cooler place.

  • Kirk Perry

    You can scour the scientific journals and not find a single one that claims any such nonsense as “100% man made”, this is language of the ill-informed. If you wish to conduct an honest investigation on this topic, the scientific information is out there and is readily available.

  • Anonymous

    I think we are saying the same thing.

  • Richard StJohn

    Federal Government report just released states climate change is naturally occurring not cause by man. I know that flies in the face of what the liberals in the Federal Government have been claiming. But then we were supposed to have lost the polar ice caps by now as well.

  • Kirk Perry

    What report are you referring to? What scientific data sources did it use? Have you read those as well? What is your source that claims that the polar ice-caps would be lost by now? I have read many official government reports on climate. and not a single one has claimed that human activity has zero to do with climate change as is your inference.

  • Thomas Remme

    We now have enough knowledge and data to warrant some sort of insurance – a Plan B. After all – there is no Planet B to evacuate to…

    People tend to insure their homes in case of fire. The odds of that happening is 1 to 1000, so why bother? Because the consequences are so dire. We have no neighbors, family or friends to seek help from if the climate goes awry – then we’re all in the same predicament…

    …and what would a Plan B look like?
    Solar on the roof of most homes, kitchen gardens, rooftop hydroponics in cities, public transportation, better bike lanes & sidewalks, sustainable farming and more.

    Less dependency on fossil fuels would mean more power to everyone (pun intended), with the exception of the fossil fuel magnates and utility companies – unless they too divest. Cleaner air & water, less destruction of nature, better energy security and green jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.

    Plan B has benefits here and now – as well as reducing the odds of dangerous changes in our climate. Fee & dividend is one great way of redistributing wealth from polluters to the population. A price on carbon where polluters pay, and the collected money goes back out to every citizen.

  • Thomas Remme

    I recommend looking into Fee & dividend, a solution proposed by among others the economist Robert Reich. This would mean a price on carbon (starting low, then slowly adjusting it upwards) – and the collected amounts is evenly distributed among the population. No gov’t interference…

    Also – check out ALEC and various fossil fuel groups actively fighting solar power and wind turbines. While at it – compare the subsidies – and the number of jobs in the various sectors.

    Solar passed coal recently – more people are now earning an income in that renewable industry than work mining coal. And quite frankly, I would rather install and maintain solar panels than work in a coal mine… Wouldn’t you?

  • Publicola

    No, you’re not. Unlike Kirk, you are pushing anti-science straw men.

  • Publicola

    “a lot of information has been falsified”

    Wrong.

    You make a good parrot though.

  • Anonymous

    Really? To say that the sun has a role in climate is anti-science? Your statement is ludicrous and the most on its face anti-science point of view I think I have ever heard.

  • Anonymous

    What data has been falsified? If you actually take some time and use your own God given intelligence, you can find the data yourself and examine it. Don’t have the education to do that? Fine, but don’t go around claiming those who do don’t know what they are talking about. It is dishonest at best to do so.

  • Anonymous

    I find the position that God will protect us from ourselves to be exceptionally irrational. Consider that when a person murders a Christian, and the question is asked about why God did not intervene, the answer is always ‘free will’. If God will not protect humans from injuring or hurting each other directly, what makes them believe God would prevent humans from injuring or killing each other indirectly? It is a nonsensical argument that seeks to wave aside all facts and reason. It is, in other words, the classic head-in-the-sand approach to problem solving.

  • Kirk Perry

    To be more accurate, it’s how the earth behaves in relation to the sun. This behavior is quite predictable and happens over very long periods of time. The science on this is vast and comprehensive. Human contributions are invasive on a much shorter time scale. I believe the straw-man comment was directed at the statement, “But to say that everyone agrees that global warming…is 100% man made”. No one with an ounce of credibility would say such a ludicrous thing, thus creating a fallacy of both logic and science.

  • Publicola

    You are pushing lies, wittingly or otherwise.

  • Publicola

    Yes, you are really pushing anti-science straw men.

    No climate scientist has ever claimed or implied that climate change is 100% man-made; climate scientists have instead always stated that the Sun plays a role in climate change.

  • Publicola

    Your right, you know.

  • Anonymous

    Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first
    scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20
    years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”.
    Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the
    “science is settled.” He is convinced that global warming is a natural
    change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly
    poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the
    President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth
    and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer
    to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a
    political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor.
    It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of
    scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there
    with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are
    about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus
    offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their
    global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles
    their voice”.

  • Anonymous

    Contrary to your claim that no one with an once of credibility would say such a thing. There are numerous apparently un-credible people making exactly this statement and people are listening to them so what would you call that?

  • Anonymous

    Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated,

    “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global
    warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science
    works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research
    became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in
    reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the
    man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts
    the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil
    companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research.
    He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures
    that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this
    winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are
    relegated to the business pages”.

  • Anonymous

    Facts are stubborn things that even mass repetition cannot change. Take some time off and do some of your own research. If you are truly interested in this debate then it would be a good idea to leave the door open to the possibility that you and those like you who truly believe that the debate is over, may in fact find yourselves to be wrong. Which if it is true that you are in fact wrong then this would be a good thing to know. The real dangers of our industrialized technocracy is not global warming but toxicity of the air water, soil and the human mind filled with propaganda. Get on the right side of history and start shouting from the rooftops about that and you won’t have to argue with those who are more informed ever again. Because most everyone agrees that this statement is in fact true.

  • Anonymous

    For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its
    hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the
    potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was
    filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get
    something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist,
    astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all
    know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s
    popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his
    movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and
    stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the
    political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the
    research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”.
    They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that
    theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar
    activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he
    presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core
    samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2
    being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of
    scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around
    800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise
    in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing
    temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it
    follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group
    also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge
    in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four
    decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN,
    which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists,
    “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who
    disagreed with its findings.”

  • Anonymous

    Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made.
    He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to
    human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest
    deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting
    time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear
    and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then
    he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of
    dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific
    position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to
    meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very
    interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing
    that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global
    cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species,
    that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting,
    sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that
    climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always
    occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the
    Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was
    known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with
    changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing,
    changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and
    that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling
    engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

  • Kirk Perry

    In the quote above, notice that he is calling out the politicians and journalists. When I say credible, I am referring to peer-reviewed science written by credentialed scientists. That being said, I still don’t see any “100%” nonsense. Science deals in degrees and probabilities, not absolutes.