Global warming alarmist: gw “deniers” are “on par with Holocaust deniers”

The attempts to silence skeptics via intimidation continues:

I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

Read more of Ellen Goodman’s gw alarmist rant here. Doesn’t sound like Ellen’s gellin’ , does it?

In other gw-related news, non-scientist non-climatologist but gw expert all the same Al Gore is getting ready to announce a series of upcoming “climate change” concerts that supposedly will be even bigger than Live Aid.

But will they be bigger than his massive ego?

Al Gore Photograph by Jeff Riedel/EW

Speaking of, I wonder if the planned ‘doomsday vault’ , which is designed to ‘resist the effects of global warming’, could hold Gore AND his ego at the time? Wouldn’t it be nice to find out? I know a surefire way to get him interested in trying out the ‘vault’: assure him if that he moves there, he can run for president and, for once, win.

Update I: Don Surber has more on “Yellin’ Ellen”‘s rant here.

Also, make sure to check out John Hawkins’ interview with Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.

Update II: Larry Elder has an interesting ‘suggestion‘. (hat tip: ST reader DS)

Prior/Related:

44 Responses to "Global warming alarmist: gw “deniers” are “on par with Holocaust deniers”"

Don Surber » Blog Archive » Yellin’ Ellen says:

February 9, 2007 at 1:34 pm

[…] UPDATE: Shout out to Sister Toldjah. I look forward to meeting her when the left gathers us “deniers” in those Re-Education Camps. […]
Tom TB says:

February 9, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I think Ellen Goodman saw movies like “Waterworld” and no one clued her in that it was fiction. I would gain if the sea level would rise, but if it hasn’t here in 70 something years, my deep-draft ark would just sink in the mud!
Steve Skubinna says:

February 9, 2007 at 5:15 pm

You know, I have actually been in spots like Al’s photo, for much longer than it takes to snap the shutter, but I don’t believe I ever had any pictures taken. How sad for me, I could have garnered immense street cred.

I eagerly look forward to the day the lefties try to serve me that warrant to appear at my Nuremburg style trial. Please, oh please!
Bob says:

February 9, 2007 at 6:58 pm

So Ellen Goodman’s comments (which appear in a rather light-hearted piece if you read it, BTW) are being taken as a serious threat to intimidate GW skeptics? And because some other nut-job somewhere else throws out the silly comment about Nuremburg-style trials for industry/political leaders, now your average conservative skeptic thinks that all the liberals are out to get them? Who are the lily-livered GW skeptics that would seriously think twice about expressing their views because of statements like these? I know you guys tend to feign hysteria sometimes to make political points, but if this is the kind of thing that intimidates you, I think Patrick Henry ( “Give me liberty or give me a Prius!”) would be very ashamed.
Severian says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Well, it’s nightime, and the parrots are squawking…
Severian says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:06 pm

The Northern Hemisphere temperature history as modeled using Milankovitch variations in solar radiation modulated by volcanic aerosols, using oceans and carbon dioxide only as minor dependent variables. BP means before 1955 CE.

This figure captures very well, the “little ice age”, the Medieval Warm Period, and other known variations of late BCE and early CE times. The drivers of this model are Milankovitch calculations (average for the entire Hemisphere) and the observed volcanic record described above. Carbon dioxide is treated as a very minor dependent variable. It is unlikely that a general circulation model which assumes a major role of carbon dioxide can duplicate this known climatic sequence.

Link
Bob says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:09 pm

It’s not parrots, Severian. It’s secret agents of the IPCC. They’re in the bushes just outside your window. Run! It’s your last chance for freedom! You can take your SUV up to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and drill your own oil up there. Go while there’s still time . . . please!

Come on, how could there be a thread on global warming around here that wasn’t infested by me . . .
Marshall Art says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Hahahaha! Bob, you’re a stitch! (gag)

Ellen puts a couple of things out there that are really pointless. #1 would be the poll between what Republicans believe and what Democrats believe regarding gw. It doesn’t surprise me that more Dems buy into gw hysteria. But how is this relevant or evidence or worth the time it took to type?

#2 would be this bit:

“Speaking of corruption of science, the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten $1.6 million over the years from Exxon Mobil, offered $10,000 last summer to scientists who would counter the IPCC report.”

It is written as if there is a bribe to make sh** up to counter the IPCC report as opposed to possibly just offering dough to those who’s research shows a contradictory picture. Maybe she should present evidence of support if it’s the former or she’s just wasted more time printing the latter where it couldn’t be called corruption of science at all.
Severian says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Have you heard the latest Marshall Art? The allegation that the AEI was paying people to counter the report is totally false, it’s a lie propagated by the British paper that reported it. The AEI is willing to pay for a debate and analysis, not for a debunking. The AEI is demanding a retraction, and the politicians, all Dems of course, who jumped on this now look like the fools they are. Just more of the typical lies the AGW zealots are willing to sling around in their frantic effort to stifle debate and discussion.

Note that lost in all the hoopla and the “we’re all gonna die if we don’t stifle the West’s economies” is the fact that despite the bleating of the AGW zealots about the IPCC report, which is not the scientific report but a political summary, the report downgrades both the confidence level and the magnitude of the problem. Not that you’d know that from the hysteria coming out of the press and politicians. And this report still does not include the latest data on ocean cooling, which undercuts their arguments even further.
Steve Skubinna says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Come off it, Bob, it’s always Nazis with you clowns. Don’t pretend it’s some weird coincidence at work, the damn Hitler and Nazi slanders are nonstop from the left. So far none of you fearless fighters for justice has had the stones to call me one to my face, which shows you aren’t as stupid as you act.
Sister Toldjah says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Ya’ll are gonna love this one:

LONDON, Feb. 9 — British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, with former vice president Al Gore at his side, on Friday offered a $25 million prize for anyone who can come up with a way to blunt global climate change by removing at least a billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from the Earth’s atmosphere.

“I believe in our resourcefulness and in our capacity to invent solutions to the problems we have ourselves created,” said Branson, who has already pledged to invest $3 billion in profits from his transportation companies, including Virgin Atlantic Airlines and Virgin Trains, to fighting global warming.

“We are now facing a planetary emergency,” said Gore, who has become one of the world’s leading voices on climate change issues, most lately with his documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore, who will serve as a judge in the Virgin Earth Challenge, said he hoped the contest would spur scientific innovation without distracting from more practical steps people can take to battle global warming, such as using energy-efficient light bulbs or pressuring politicians to confront “the crisis of our time.”

“It’s a challenge to the moral imagination of humankind,” Gore said at a packed news conference, where several noted climate scientists and authors attended, provided videotaped endorsements or appeared by live video-link.
Severian says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Hey Bob, today I emptied a CO2 fire extinguisher into the air in your honor…
Sister Toldjah says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:42 pm

LOL Sev!
Severian says:

February 9, 2007 at 8:45 pm

I saw that BS Sister Toldjah. Isn’t it interesting, this is soooo important that as Saint Al says “We are now facing a planetary emergency” how can he excuse the “developing” world like China from restrictions. Either it’s so damned important and destruction is so imminent that all CO2 emissions need controlled and reduced, or it isn’t. Which is it Al? If it’s that important, how can you say that well, China deserves a pass and the US should reduce, unless your intention really is to stifle the US and Western nations because you, as most far leftists do, hate your own societies. And notice that once again, a member of the Clinton administration is in bed with the Chinese. Wasn’t it enough that they gave them critical US missile technology?
geezer says:

February 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

We lose Steve Irwin to a ray, but we can’t get one self-respecting poisonous spider to bite Gore in his more than ample arse?

Denis Leary, please come out of hiding…
Great White Rat says:

February 9, 2007 at 11:17 pm

And now the facts are coming out about the AEI story that Bob and his cohorts used as proof that Big Oil (cue scary ominous music) was behind all the skepticism surrounding global warming.

For example, we learn this:

What AEI did was send a letter to several leading climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would present a “range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension.” Some of the scholars asked to participate, including Steve Schroeder of Texas A& M, are climatologists who believe that global warming is a major problem.

In other words, AEI was being far more open and scientific about its investigation than, oh, say, IPCC, which refused to allow any opinions except those of the Gore camp. Funny how Bob didn’t mention that pro-GW climatologists were invited.

And this:

AEI President Chris DeMuth says, “What the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI — and Brookings, Harvard and the University of Manchester — to pay individuals” for commissioned work….By the way, commissioning such research is also standard practice at NASA and other government agencies and at liberal groups such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, which have among them spent billions of dollars attempting to link fossil fuels to global warming.

Uh huh. So do we have a scorecard of prominent liberal outlets who routinely “bribe” scientists and others, or is the whole story a non-story? I’m thinking option B here. But I’d love to see how many GW skeptics the Pew Trusts invited to participate in “open” scientific discussion.

That’s the factual part. The closing editorializing part summarizes this all nicely:

One can only conclude from this episode that the environmental left and their political and media supporters now believe it is legitimate to quash debate on climate change and its consequences. This is known as orthodoxy, and, until now, science accepted the legitimacy of challenging it.

LINK
Baklava says:

February 9, 2007 at 11:23 pm

ST, I applaud the billionaire. THAT is a non-leftist solution that I actually wrote a few threads ago!

Keeps the funds fron being pulled from taxpayers…
Baklava says:

February 10, 2007 at 12:23 am

What does Bush think about GW? Not what leftists accuse for sure !!! Leftists and the press are lazy and attack without research. READ what I linked.
Baklava says:

February 10, 2007 at 12:26 am

Excerpt from the above link:

Between 2003 and 2006, the President committed nearly $3 billion annuallyâ€“more than any other
country in the world â€“ to climate change technology research and deployment programs. His
administration is carrying out dozens of federal programs, including partnerships, consumer
information campaigns, incentives, and mandatory regulations.

Shoot on EVERY topic the legacy drive-by legacy press has LIED to us. They should be removed from their positions for their fraud.
Tom TB says:

February 10, 2007 at 4:24 am

What Richard Branson should do to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere:
Of course, immediately scrap his fleet of turbine- engined jets! No one will ever take his “cause” with anything but a laugh while Virgin Air planes are roaring about the planet, belching out tonnes of the stuff!
Build a fleet of Clipper ships modeled on the olde “Cutty-Sark” and sail the seven seas, give the under-employed British yobs a taste of tradition, and a touch of the cat’o nine to give discipline. Call it of course “Virgin Sail”.
Start a “Every City is Babylon” movement, with lush green vines and veggies hanging from every office tower and tenement, converting the Carbon to Chlorophyll, and feeding the forlorn!
Severian says:

February 10, 2007 at 7:25 am

Branson is a clever one. When your primary business is flying large aircraft around the world carrying passengers (ooooh, the carbon footprint!) and blowing holes in the atmosphere with private joyride spacecraft, better setup some kind of PR to keep the greenies off your back. It’s not like anyone anytime soon will be stepping up to claim that prize I think, so it’s win win for Branson. But, better him than government money, his was earned, not seized.
Severian says:

February 10, 2007 at 7:26 am

To add to the last sentence, he earned it thru capitalism, and if he wants to spend it this way, more power to him, he should be able to spend it anyway he wants as long as it’s not harmful, like buying suicide bombers or such. This is the beauty of capitalism and free markets.
Six Meat Buffet » The Only Way To Stop Global Warming Is To Give the U.N. All Your Money says:

February 10, 2007 at 10:02 am

[…] This is also why the scare-merchants viciously attack those who don’t fall in line with their bunk conclusions. Once the left starts equating the dissenters with “holocaust deniers,” you know they don’t have a leg to stand on. […]
Bob says:

February 10, 2007 at 11:48 am

Thank you for the link to the White House press release on global warming, Baklava. The statement says the following:

Following last Friday’s release of a new report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a number of media reports perpetuated inaccuracies that the President’s concern about climate change is new. In fact, climate change has been a top priority since the President’s first year in office.

Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem. Consider the following statements by the President:

“First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warmingâ€¦There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warmingâ€¦And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.” â€“ June 11, 2001

“My Administration is committed to cutting our Nation’s greenhouse gas intensityâ€¦by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” â€“ February 14, 2002

“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oilâ€¦.they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.” â€“ January 23, 2007

So it seems, Severian, ST, GWR, et al., that the Bush administration is already acknowledging that global warming is a “serious challenge” and that “humans are contributing to the problem.” He recommends that our nation should be set “on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” That seems to pretty much leave you guys out in the cold, if you’ll pardon the expression. Gosh, if you’re even to the right of the Bush administration on an environmental issue, that must make you some kind of extremist. So tell me, you guys, is the President wrong? Is he just another chicken little alarmist, or what?
Bob says:

February 10, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Come on, you guys. I’m disappointed that your rhetoric seems to be failing you at such a critical time in the discussion. You seem to be left with no answers as to why the Bush administration’s official White House statement (hat tip to Baklava!) includes an explicit acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a “serious challenge” for which they plan to “stop and then reverse the growth of emissions.” Is Al Gore on the White House staff now, or what? How do you explain this? How do you feel about the administration retreating on this issue, leaving you guys all alone on the front lines? Is GWB an alarmist too? ST’s cat got your tongue?
Baklava says:

February 10, 2007 at 10:17 pm

As I’ve been saying for years Bob, unfortunately for conservatives and AMERICA, Bush is left of center.

On almost every issue. The only thing slightly conservative he passed was the very minor tax cut for ALL Americans even those who don’t pay taxes (EITC).

The unfortunate thing for liberals is that they have demagogued to FAR on this issue acting like Bush is against the environment when he has done more than the socialists in charge of the EU.

It points to the fact that leftists need to apologize for making inaccurate accusations about Bush. Including YOU bob.

You didn’t read the letter by the way. Bush hasn’t retreated on the issue and in fact you owe an apology for making an inaccurate accusation there.

Seems you can’t help being inaccurate all over the place bob.

Why are you opposed to a free debate on this topic Bob?
Bob says:

February 10, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Why do you hate America, Baklava? And why do you insist on defining yourself as the center of the universe? Just because something is slightly to the left of you doesn’t make it “left of center.” You’re a right-wing extremist. Most honest observers (even Republicans) think that this is one of the most conservative administrations ever. The fact that you think they’re “left of center” pretty much proves that you’re waaaayyyy out on the fringe. Why not just admit it?

As far as the Bushies go, it’s fine that they acknowledge the global warming issue, but nothing matters until they’ve actually done something about it. They talk a lot about how they’re “committed” to this, or how we’re “on the verge” of that, but so far I’m not seeing any real action. Am I wrong about that?

By the way, I’m definitely left of center, but still happy to kick it with a wing-nut like you—as long as you’re “mice.” Seriously, Baklava, I’m just busting your chops. Please don’t take it personally. I really do enjoy debating with you. Have a great rest-of-the-weekend!
Great White Rat says:

February 11, 2007 at 8:47 am

Bob, what you don’t understand is that we conservatives are capable of thinking for ourselves. For you libs, it’s easy: Bush is evil, and everything he does is wrong, even if it agrees with you.

Bush has been solid on some issues: the economy, judicial appointments, and (to an extent) prosecuting the WOT. On other things – spending, illegal immigration, expanding the size of the federal bureaucracy – he’s been right in line with the left, sometimes the extreme left. Politically, Bush is probably closer to Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson than he is to me.

So we’re not going to suddenly accept global warming alarmism just because it’s mentioned in some press release from the White House. Discarding principles at a moment’s notice is more what you’d expect of the average liberal.

By the way, Bob, seems like the cat has YOUR tongue about allowing open debate and a scientific inquiry that isn’t politically motivated here. Why no answers to that, and only some snarky comments about irrelevant press releases?
Lorica says:

February 11, 2007 at 10:07 am

Wasn ‘t Christine Todd Whitman head of the EPA at that time??? So yeah I guess the female version of Al Gore WAS working for the Bush Administration at that time. She was asked for her resignation because of stuff like this going against the administrations own policy. Then she wrote her little book “It’s my Party too” or whatever, and disappeared. – Lorica
Baklava says:

February 11, 2007 at 10:26 am

Why do you beat you wife BOB?

Bob wrote, “You’re a right-wing extremist. Most honest observers (even Republicans) think that this is one of the most conservative administrations ever.

I say that I’m a centrist conservative because I’d like to see spending actually stay the same for 10 years not cut (as that might head us into a recession) while we re-prioritize what the government spends on to what the constitution talks about.

This country has increased spending every year in every category for over 6 decades. The drive-by media talks about Republican “cuts” but they are NEVER cuts. They are reductions in the amount of increases. 7% increases are NOT cuts.

This government has grown during Bush with a new entitlement program, larger increases in spending for education ever (when that is the state’s responsibility), etc. On every issue Bush has more than compromised (except for the Iraq war) and yet you leftists are spinning out of control with your rhetoric acting like he is a super conservative or far right.

Perspective is key and you have zero. Plus you have zero civility. If you beat your wife why did you marry her. If you can’t discuss things why are you here?

Bob with ZERO reading comprehension ability wrote, “but nothing matters until they’ve actually done something about it.” You SAID you read the article I linked Bob. In it there are PLENTY of words that show they’ve done MORE than any other country on the planet. Can you go print the article show it to somebody else and have them diagram the sentences that talk about doing stuff. Try not to beat them up when they say smarter things than you.

Bob wrote, “Am I wrong about that?”

As far as I can tell you are wrong about everything including the premise of your first question. ZERO reading comprehension, full of inaccurate accusations, the only one with so much HATE here is you. You attack and put us on the defensive. Over and over it’s as if the only one who “cares” about anything is you and we don’t care is what you think. That’s the typical liberal pattern. We can’t have a conversation with most because they think conservatives don’t care. All along the way they say things that aren’t factually true, mean, and without due diligence to see if what they are saying is true. Then they ignore what we or anyone else has said that is conservative whereas we actually do consider and read what liberals have to say.

I’m not just busting your chops. You are so negligent with every topic (research wise) that I think you must hate America. Truly. Additionally, you no longer deserve the respect of a conversation from me. You are out of line and don’t start pointing fingers elsewhere as you usually do. The only person you can control is your own self Bob. And your behavior is awful.
Bob says:

February 11, 2007 at 12:33 pm

So let’s see: the “consensus” among the right-wingers here seems to be that the president is some kind of crypto-liberal, and that it’s quite likely that Christine Todd Whitman is to blame for those global warming statements (even though the president himself was the one making them). I just think it’s interesting that so much hot air is wasted vilifying Al Gore, as though he were personally perpetrating a fraud, when the president himself is making statements that are completely in line with the gist of Gore’s position.

And Baklava, my question about “why do you hate America” was a parody of what I constantly hear from right-wingers (and you actually used it on me in a non-ironical sense later on, just like a real wing-nut), in response to your typically meaningless and disingenuous question in the previous post about “Why are you opposed to a free debate on this topic Bob?” If this hasn’t been a free debate, then what has it been? Were you too intimidated by Ellen Goodman to freely say what’s on your mind? Were you afraid to contradict the president? I don’t understand your constant complaints. If there’s something you’ve been unable to say, please go ahead and say it. I promise not to turn you in to the IPCC.
Great White Rat says:

February 11, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Bob’s still trying to change the subject:
in response to your typically meaningless and disingenuous question in the previous post about “Why are you opposed to a free debate on this topic Bob?” If this hasn’t been a free debate, then what has it been?

The issue isn’t whether we can have an open debate here. The fact that you’re still around even as your posts asymptotically approach absolute trollhood is proof of that.

The question – now try real hard to focus – is why you and the left are so opposed to any sort of free debate on the subject in any scientific forum, not on a blog. Got the difference? Come on, I know you can tell them apart if you try really really hard.

AEI invites scientists from both camps to debate the topic, and you start babbling incoherently about how Big Oil is out to kill polar bears and flood New York. You leave no doubt that you do not want any such independent inquiry.

But the UN – ah, that’s another story. The conclusions were massaged and politicized to fit your chicken-little scenario, with no evidence to the contrary even examined, and you pontificate about it being proof positive.

The Bob view then, based purely on your own statements:

1. Open inquiry must not be allowed.
2. Politicized pseudo-studies are gospel.

So cut the horse hockey about how you’re not opposed to a true, open, scientific debate, and face the question: why is that?

If you can for once give an honest, reasoned response, you just might pull back from the brink of irrelevance here. Somehow I doubt it, but give it your best shot.
Lorica says:

February 11, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Bob I have to confess, I didn’t read the link, cuz I really don’t care about global warming. I was just talking about the date, and the fact that Christine Todd Whitman was let go from the EPA for basically being out of step with the administration. As far as humans contributing to GW’ng, ok whaddya gonna do?? Maybe we can legislate China’s 1 child policy thru out the whole world. Are you going to regulate human flatulations, and get rid of all smoking and open fires?? There goes my annual Cherries Jubilee, dang. Also the I just briefly scanned the link that Bak had, and the President isn’t anywhere close to suggesting some of the stuff Sir Al and company have suggested. YAY!!! The human population might contribute to GW. So what, if the 2 largest countries are expempt from the treaty that we must follow and those 2 countries, you know damn well this is true, are more responsible for that contribution then why should we here bother??

My thoughts on GW’ng are in all actuallity closer to a biblical belief that this earth was created as a paradise. My Uncle drilled oil wells in Alaska, and he told me many times that when they took geological samples before they drilled a well, that many times they found petrified palm trees. This is in Alaska. What/How can palm trees be in Alaska?? This only proves that the earth was warmer than is presently is.

Like I said before, I believe that the earth was created to be a paradise. I also think that the Lord God is going to have the earth in the condition He originally created it. But if you read the book of Revelations, it clearly says that the earth will have no more oceans. So what is going to happen to all that water?? Makes the one wonder. – Lorica
Severian says:

February 11, 2007 at 6:21 pm

The fact that you’re still around even as your posts asymptotically approach absolute trollhood is proof of that.

With all this hoopla about AEI and their paltry $10,000 fee to cover expenses for scientists to analyze the report, you never hear about James Hansen, the hysterical “they’re trying to silence MEEEEEE” NASA apostle of AGW. He got a grant for $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation after he signed on supporting Kerry for president as one of Kerry’s “environmental” advisers. So I’m forced to ask, if the AEI is unethical, doesn’t that make Hansen 25 times as unethical?
Severian says:

February 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Putting on my beat Butthead impersonation:

Heh heh heh…he said asymptotic….heh heh heh…

That’s gonna leave a mark GWR!
Bob says:

February 11, 2007 at 8:09 pm

Heck, I’m all in favor of an open scientific debate, as if I have any personal influence on it one way or the other. Anyone who wants to submit their research to a scientific journal for publication is free to do so. Nobody’s stopping them—certainly not me! If you’re talking about the AEI’s PR effort, heck, everyone has the right of free speech. Nobody’s stopping anyone from accepting their money and writing up whatever the heck they feel like. You guys can call it science if you like, and I can call it PR. Once again, it’s all free speech. Despite your constant whining, I’m still not seeing anyone who’s being silenced here. Maybe you can point out some poor victim of this oppressive system for me. Give me some names, please.

Lorica, about those fossilized Alaskan palm trees: is it possible that the particular part of Alaska had once been located in a more southerly latitude millions of years ago, and the land migrated northward due to plate tectonic motion? It’s just a thought. In any case, I don’t think the earth having been warmer millions of years ago is either specifically disputed by many climatologists nor is it incompatible with the current warming trend being caused by recent human activity. I’ve read about a likely global warming episode that was triggered around 50 million years ago by a huge release of methane from the ocean. This was apparently a cataclysmic event that caused major changes in the earth’s animal and plant populations, leading to many extinctions. With regard to the supposed Chinese curse that goes, “May you live in interesting times” I’m not sure that such an event would be something to either wish for or be blasÃ© about.

Baklava was kind enough to respond to my questions to you about the Bush administration’s global warming statements. As I was saying, you all spend so much energy vilifying Al Gore; how do you feel when the Bush administration appears to be largely in agreement with the gist of Gore’s position? Is President Bush an alarmist too?
sanity says:

February 11, 2007 at 8:15 pm

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

….

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. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the AdÃ©lie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

….

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

….

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

Times Online

As I said before, I believe that the sun and our universal positioning is what is mostly affecting the warming and the coolig of the earth and while we as man, may play a small part in it, I think many are giving man way too much credit for something that is “very likely”. We are 90% sure, in other words…we can’t be 100% positive that it is right.

I think this is open for much more debate, and we still have a LONG way to go before we know the answers, and I believe that anyone who shuts down that debate, and tries to itimidate (yank credentials, put them in jail, call them nazis, putting them on par with Holocaust deniers..ect) and calls it over with is more fool than anything else.
Bob says:

February 11, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Once again, sanity, people on the GW skeptic side are free to express their views, like Nigel Calder who you quote. Whose credentials are being yanked? Who’s so intimidated that they’re afraid to express their views? And for crying out loud, who’s being put in jail? I’m just not buying all of this talk about persecution and victimization. Either prove that this supposed intimidation campaign is really silencing people, or find something significant to complain about.

I can’t help but suspect that all of this complaining is being done because the skeptic side is angry and frustrated that people don’t seem to take them more seriously. If that’s the case, that’s their problem.
Severian says:

February 11, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Bob has the typical liberal ability to not see what’s happening right before his eyes. He innocently bats his eyes and whines “Nobody is being repressed” despite articles calling for Nuremberg trials for skeptics, the Weather Bimbo at TWC saying any meteorologist that doubts should be discredited, reports of intimidation from scientists,and two prominent state climatologists having their positions threatened for daring to speak their minds. But then that’s hardly surprising, not only is it a typical liberal ploy, but he won’t acknowledge any scientific fact that disagrees with his dogma.

Dishonesty at it’s finest. Ignore the truth, ignore what’s happening, and just sit there and incredulously act like nothing is happening.
Severian says:

February 11, 2007 at 10:43 pm

The AGW proponents tried to sweep Svensmark’s theories under the rug, using the excuse that they weren’t “proven” which is hypocritical as their pet CO2 based theories are based on even more unproven science, basically the belief that correlation equals causality. Well, now he has experimental verification that the effect works as he said it did, which is something the pro-AGW people don’t have, all they have are the results of computer models that don’t even reflect reality enough to predict short term effects accurately. Expect the vilification of Svensmark to start in earnest soon, his data and theories are too dangerous to the “it’s all mankind’s fault” CO2 crowd to be allowed to escape unscathed.

The effect Svensmark has discovered by itself is enough to account for over 2/3rds of the observed warming. Definitely an “inconvenient truth.”
Bob says:

February 11, 2007 at 10:45 pm

If anybody thinks they’re being repressed, Severian, they simply need to grow a spine, stop sniveling and get to work. As I said, provide names or stories of people who’ve been prevented from having their say and maybe I’ll give some credence to your typically baseless accusations. These vague conspiracy theories are implausible and silly.

And once again, it seems that you can’t formulate an answer to the Bush administration’s statements on global warming. If the president essentially agrees with the gist of Al Gore’s position, where does that leave you guys?
Bob says:

February 11, 2007 at 11:13 pm

Severian, if Svensmark’s work provides the explanation to recently observed global warming, then I’d actually be thrilled. Why wouldn’t I, or anyone, be glad if global warming turned out not to be due to human activity? It’s just one piece of work, though. And while you pooh-pooh computer modeling experiments, Svensmark’s experimental setup is far from real-life in its own right. If I understand correctly, they use a reaction chamber filled with gasses to simulate the earth’s atmosphere, which is exposed to ultraviolet lamps that are supposed to mimic the sun’s rays, and then the whole thing is bombarded with cosmic radiation. Extrapolating from this completely artificial atmosphere-in-a-jar setup to worldwide climate would be a huge leap. You can’t be suggesting that one such experiment is definitive, or that it delivers a fatal blow to the theory of man-made global warming all by itself, can you? The IPCC, for example, has a lot more data on their side for now. If Svensmark and his cohorts can put more meat on their hypothesis, then let the experts debate it. I’ll be interested to see how it goes. And if their hypothesis turns out to be a bust—who knows?—maybe they’ll create a new form of life in their little atmosphere chamber.
And by the way, apparently the IPCC hit men haven’t gotten to Svensmark yet. He seems to be doing this work completely un-molested. You’d better warn him that he’s in danger.
Baklava says:

February 12, 2007 at 9:22 am

Do me one favor guys, Don’t respond to the lazy, mean, trolls.
Bob says:

February 12, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Baklava, I take it that your comment about “trolls” means that you’re unable to handle a “free debate” like a grownup, so you’re going to pout and hold your breath thinking that it matters to me one way or the other. Sorry if you can’t tolerate someone who has different views from you. Frankly, the constant sore feelings and sanctimonious diatribes on your part are getting to be a bit of a drag. I’d be happy to discuss things with you, and would always try to be as respectful and courteous as you treated me (or not, if respect and courtesy isn’t your preference, as mostly seems to be the case). Anyway, it’s your problem. If you ever grow up enough to disagree with someone without losing your cool, please check back in.

Comments are closed.