To your 1st point, Avery is not proving cause and effect here, he is saying this global heat imbalance is “consistent with”. Like hearing the rooster crow might be compatible with the sun rising. This is not arguable.

2nd point: of course projections are never provable at the time they are projected, speaking of non sequiturs.

On your third point I must agree, but as to who funds the RealClimate site- I take them at their word. From the “About” section:

The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

Also, your comparison of the possible intentions of the IPCC and Exxon are laughable. What do thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries have to gain financially by “promoting” GW? Why so cynical?

Bob, you missed the point. I deliberately used an extremist comparison to highlight the concept, but let’s take it down a step and go through it slowly.

If a paper doubting the global warming claims were found to be financed by Exxon, you’d be first in line to sneer at it. You wouldn’t care one bit about the authors’ credentials or methodology – you’d see only that check from Exxon as the reason for the conclusions.

And when I see a pro-global warming study released that is paid for by the UN, I have the same reaction. Before I’d accept anything in that document, you’d have to present me with incontrovertible proof that the conclusions were not pre-packaged and edited by the people who cut the check for the study.

And as far as moral equivalence, I have no opinion on IPCC specifically, but the UN sure as hell is the moral equivalent of the KKK on some very real levels. But that’s another topic for another time.

(1) The GW priest, Archer, disdains Avery and Singer, for using models that don’t account for certain factors, and then dives in this bit of non-sequitur:

The global heat imbalance has been inferred (Hansen et al, Science, 2005), and it is consistent with rising greenhouse gas concentrations and transient heating of the ocean.

Got that? You’re supposed to infer cause and effect because one happens at the same time as the other. You could just have easily have written: the rising of the sun in the east has been noted, and it is consistent with my rooster crowing in the morning. Talk about jumping to conclusions….

(2) There’s a good deal of sprited debate in the commentary, but there’s one point the GW alarmists, despite their one-sided control of the board, are never able to refute: GW is based entirely on projections which cannot be forecast with complete accuracy. It’s amusing that the most common rebuttal is to accuse those who point this out as being of the same mindframe as people who believe in a geocentric universe or a flat earth, despite the fact that both have been proven wrong. Einstein’s brilliance can conceive of relativity, and that’s still a theory, but when divinity-school dropout Al Gore pontificates about global warming, well, then, that has to be a fact.

(3) Another pot-meets-kettle moment: the GW choir is all over Avery for his background as an economist, not as a climate scientist. By the time they finish, we have environmentalists lecturing on economic details.

(4) Point of curiosity: who funds this RealClimate organization, anyway? For some reason, they don’t seem to get into those details on their site. I mean, if Bob can paint everyone who demurs on any point of the GW debate as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Big Oil, might we lift this rock a little and see if anything unsavory crawls out?

LINK

Given that the UN is now basically a forum where tinpot dictators and anti-semites try to come up with new and better way of destroying liberty and prosperity, any report produced under its imprimatur is highly suspect.

It has roughly the same credibility as if the KKK hired a collection of like-minded social scientists and had them issue a report ‘proving’ Jews and blacks are inferior. It would, of course, be properly ‘peer reviewed’ internally (drink, everyone!), but I’d still think it to be bunk.

No irony here. And not sensitive? Doesn’t look that way to me.

Bob, you’ll come to see that arguments here are US vs THEM, Convservative vs. Librul. There is total silence when you point out the way this admin has handled this issue with it’s secretive “energy task forces”. Baklava can’t even seperate the scientific from the political components of this issue asserting that because 95 senators voted against Kyoto, anthro-induced global warming can’t be true! I guess you “lose”, Bob!

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

Apparently JunkScience.com needs new material, since legitimate scientific evidence to to counter the new IPCC study is so hard to come by. I like the part about how travel expenses are also included. These guys really treat their shills well, I must say.

DEMANDS!

PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

….

But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

….

Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union” he said.

….

Mr. Chirac’s critics say that despite his comments in support of environmental measures, his record as president is far from green. He angered environmentalists across the globe when he conducted nuclear tests in a Pacific atoll within months of coming into office in 1995. He has been a loyal ally of French farmers and their pollution-causing practices, blocking some proposed Europe-wide reforms.

Most recently, France’s national plan for allocating carbon emission credits to businesses had to be revised after the European Union rejected it as too generous.

Link

So let me get this straight….

France DEMANDS we sign, but they have been ‘less than green’ in their own country?

France DEMANDS we sign, or face a carbon tax that could run contrary (meaning illegal) to International Trade Rules. But it’s ok if it is illegal because he thinks most of EU would support it?

France DEMANDS?

When they can stop France from burning, and their citizens from being assaulted by muslim rioters…then I will think about listening to what France has to say, but they want to DEMAND, they can kiss our ***.

By the way, they want to tax like a liberal? Tell me, what would it do to them if we cut or severly taxed them in response?

Since when does France tell other countries how and what to do and what treaties they need to sign?

Since when did France grow a pair of balls?

You leftists are so high on yourselves you cant allow for non-leftists to actually be “well intentioned”.

It doesn’t bother me as much as I like bothering you by pointing it out. I’ve dealt with your kind ever since converting from liberalism in 1991. I know what it feels like to be a liberal.

It’s framed as it is because it’s a leftist solution (which hurts the environment) versus free market and science with perspective based solution. Leftists have such lack of perspective that they can’t see their solutions result in bad results.

BTW – I do better than you. I ride the bus most days! I care more! This is the game you play when you attack others for what you think they care about. NEXT TIME DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT DUE TO FUNDING!

Imagine $1,000 per month electric bills because that is what solar costs. Did you read the links with the costs in the chart or did you continue negligence?

Conservatives for their part understand the economy better and instead of being sensitive to the socialist statement you should work on understanding how things work in this country and what limits to power are imposed by the constitution on the Congress and the President.

To what end will you go destroying economies and hurting people with poverty to lower things (let’s just change it to satisfy you) 1/100th of a degree.

Last thing 95-0 senators disagree with your last sentence. You lose.

Since you’re so hyper-sensitive about any direct or implied criticism of the president or conservatives, let me say that, of course, this is a problem that is shared equally by all people in industrialized societies. It goes for Republicans as much as for Chevy Suburban-driving liberals, whoever they may be. Since you asked, I drive a little Japanese car that gets 32 mpg, live in a house of 4 where we keep the thermostat set no higher than 65º and rarely have power bills that exceed $100 per month. I think we’re doing pretty well.

I don’t understand why this issue is being framed as a conservative-vs-liberal one. In the search for creative solutions, I think that liberals need to re-examine their knee-jerk opposition to things like nuclear or hydroelectric power. Conservatives, for their part, need to refrain from shouting “socialist!” every time it’s suggested that we shouldn’t allow our energy policies to be drafted by energy industry lobbyists. I still think the suggestion that improving energy efficiency in sane and practical ways will result in economic collapse is a crock of BS. Of course, any measures that would result in severe economic hardship shouldn’t be implemented. But don’t try to tell me that there aren’t a lot of things that could be done to make significant changes in our energy use that might even improve our economy, or at least have acceptably small impacts on it.

And please, tell me where you got this 1/1000 degree figure for implementing the Kyoto treaty, or in any case, why that would necessarily be a problem? Even if all we were able to do for now were to slow or stop the increase in CO2 levels, and any further rise in temperature over the already-elevated current level, that would still be a huge achievement. But in any case, all anyone is suggesting abut Kyoto is that it’s a starting point.

1st one) “I would start immediately to identify the quickest and most efficient ways to save energy, like enacting mandatory gas efficiency standards for automobiles,“. Congress has grappled with this for years with no agreement. The President (unlike your insinuated accusation) has proposed a more complex and BETTER way of CAFE which recognizes vehicle weight because there are purposes for vehicles that have 5-8 passenger capacity or more. The proposal isn’t non-existent as negligent liberals like to say but disagreed to because progress can’t exist for liberals. They NEED a problem as opposed to a solution. Victory? Never! Solution? Never! See – I can cast aspersions to.

2nd one)”recommending energy-saving measures like the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs for homes and businesse” CFL’s are a no-brainer for me. It’s the only light bulb I’ve purchased for the last 5 years. Can’t be used on dimmer switches and many specialty lights and it’s only 5% of the market place. Mandating would be the wrong way to go for our government. Educating would be the right way to go and that can be done free (no government program) if the media wasn’t so negligent in hammering the message to consumers of the media. Doesn’t take government and it doesn’t mean I don’t “care” to say this.

Bob wrote negligently, “starting an energy efficiency advisory program to teach people how to be more efficient in their energy use for homes and businesses,” The federal government ALREADY does have programs spending tax payer dollars to educate in this area. Good job bob.

Bob funnily wrote, “study the possibility of increased use of nuclear, hydro-electric, wind and solar energy sources, etc,” Pretty funny stuff. Damn’s are opposed, nuclear is opposed, solar isn’t opposed but who is going to bear the up front cost of making many square miles of solar panels which would cost a fortune. Solar energy costs about 10 times as much as energy created with fossil fuels. Which gets back to my point about resources spent trying to lower the temperature 1/1000th of a degree when the resources could better be spent on food, shelter, medicine.

Bob confuses the role of the government with the private sector it seems which happens a lot with liberals by saying, “There’s a lot that could be done, that is currently not being done because certain of our leaders refuse to acknowledge the problem or begin to think creatively what to do about it.” Government doing what Bob? Taking money from individuals and business and pouring it into another industry? Government picking winner and loser businesses?

Bob wrote something nobody said here “The passive and defeatist attitude that we can’t possibly do anything meaningful to begin to address the problem because we’ll cripple our economy is BS.”

There are things we can do but the things liberals ask countries to do are economically horrible and would hurt more people than help people. Socialism is not a method of helping any country be prosperous but is a way of helping them suffer. The President and the Congress have taken steps. I understand you want more done. How about this post of mine to help you understand the role of government and the press. Inefficency (government) and liars (the press) will have the negligent (Bob’s) duped every time.

To me the real issues is consumers. The American people. Engine technology has doubled in twenty years. Horsepower in a Nissan Sentra used to be 70. Now it is 140+. Almost every car/truck has had the technology go towards efficiency gains but ALSO POWER gains. It is the American consumer (voter) that is to be blamed and instead Bob you like to demonize conservatives. My very lefty neighbor has a Toyota 4 runner 4 wheel drive. Never goes off road. I’ve seen Algore and Kerry stickers on Chevy Suburbans. I applaud people that live within their means and don’t live extravagantly (not the Barbara Streisands of the world). It takes a lot of energy to fly Hollywood types around and heat and cool their 20,000 square foot homes. Solutions have less to do with government (except for some changes to regulations and protections for the environment) and more to do with each person in the world CHOOSING to live wisely.

Bob wrote, “But if we don’t start, it may be too late” So what kind of car(s) do you drive? How many people in your home and what square foot? Would you be willing to pay 10x the amount for electricity? It’s easy to demonize but as Michael Jackson sang, “start with the man in the mirror”

Bob wrote without understanding, “And as the country with the highest per-capita generation of greenhouse gasses,” As I’ve said before – the more goods and services that are produced and consumed the more energy it takes. It is a factor of our prosperity that we consumer more energy. Every single on of us purchasing 1/2 as much goods and services would drop the economy by 50% (depression) and the energy needed to do that would be dropped by 50%. For you to fail to understand this basic principle over and over is typical of leftism. Oil is the fuel that drives and economy. There are alternatives that cost quite a bit more and there are alternatives that cost the same but are opposed by enviros.

Bob wrote, “Enough passivity and excuse-making. Let’s get busy.”

OK. Downsize. Point to us your for sale sign for your house and car!!!

If I were a president who was honest enough to take seriously a mountain of data that pointed out the magnitude of the global warming problem, I would start immediately to identify the quickest and most efficient ways to save energy, like enacting mandatory gas efficiency standards for automobiles, recommending energy-saving measures like the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs for homes and businesses, starting an energy efficiency advisory program to teach people how to be more efficient in their energy use for homes and businesses, study the possibility of increased use of nuclear, hydro-electric, wind and solar energy sources, etc, etc. There’s a lot that could be done, that is currently not being done because certain of our leaders refuse to acknowledge the problem or begin to think creatively what to do about it.

The passive and defeatist attitude that we can’t possibly do anything meaningful to begin to address the problem because we’ll cripple our economy is BS. Since it’s coming from the same people who deny the scientific evidence itself, it has to be seen as empty propaganda with no evidence to support it. Of course, a comprehensive long-term solution is years away, and it would take an unprecedented amount of international cooperation to achieve. Stabilizing the CO2 level at a reasonably healthy long-term level may not even be achievable in our lifetimes. But if we don’t start, it may be too late. And as the country with the highest per-capita generation of greenhouse gasses, it’s the responsibility of the U.S. to lead the way. Enough passivity and excuse-making. Let’s get busy.

If every country actually followed Kyoto (instead of just signing onto it like Canada and then having higher emission increases than the U.S.) over the next decade nobody can make the case that temperatures would decrease more than 1/1000th of a degree celcius. Show us your math skills and be president for a post for once.

If you mandated a 6% decrease in energy consumption/usage what is the result Bob? Enough with accusations of “acting”. Use common sense and answer the question. Industries would have to use 6% less energy. It is possible through conservation to produce MORE goods and services and actually use less energy but it’s HARD and even HARDER if companies and industries have already been taking conservation steps. What conservation steps are left to give the 6% reduction of energy usage and still meet demand for products and services.

YOU FAIL bob to realize energy is needed more when an economy grows more and a prosperous country is BETTER equipped at dealing with environmental problems than struggling economies. You have the FAILED outlook that usual leftists have and then you CONTINUE to ACCUSE others concerning their intentions instead of understanding their perspective. That’s a failed way of living.