Climate change fanatics build a “replica” of Noah’s Ark

The question remains: How many carbon credits would I have to buy in order to make them sail away to a deserted island and stay there? I haven’t had any luck with my campaign to encourage The Prophet to visit and make a permanent residence out of the global warming “doomsday vault” so I’m hoping my luck will change this time around with my offer to the Noah’s Ark “replica” builders to buy carbon credits on a conditional basis.

70 Responses to "Climate change fanatics build a “replica” of Noah’s Ark"

Steve says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Seems the tide is turning. Let’s hope it continues.
Steve says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Meant to link this article
Jim Harrison says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:34 pm

This posting is so devoid of thought that it makes a nice complement to the Thomas Sowell line in the header. I mean you’re just saying, “Al Gore, blah!” in bad prose and Sowell is just implying in a complicated way that 1) “I am a uniquely honest man” and 2) “I’m really making a big impression on all those people who pretend to ignore me.” On the other hand, Sowell does have ideas from time to time so the analogy is imperfect.

And Steve, the tide is not going to turn because, whatever your ideology, it’s going to keep on getting warmer.
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Hence the ever more hysterical and alarmist shrieks from the pro-AGW crowd. They realize that the wheels are coming off the CO2 global warming bus, the fact that the science doesn’t support their sky is falling scenarios is becoming more and more evident, their lies are being exposed, so they are desperate to enact restrictive legislation and carbon trading Ponzi schemes before their story completely falls apart in such a way that even their supporters realize they’ve been had.
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:41 pm

But not as much as you bleat Jim, and not because of CO2. Plus, it will stop warming before long and global temps will start to decline. The oceans have already stopped warming and begun cooling slightly, and the suns cycle is beginning to wane. Better hurry and shriek about consensus and all that BS before everyone wakes up and sees what a ruse this all is, or they may burn you all at the stake just for being such annoying nabobs.
jay k. says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:42 pm

severain…
show me science that doesn’t support human accelerated climate change. not oil company propoganda, science.
NC Cop says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:51 pm

So steve presents an argument with a documented story that cites several prominent scientists who are all questioning Gore’s “doomsday” predictions and all Jim can say is essentially: “Is not!”

How telling.
Settembrini says:

May 16, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Severian,

Your ability to view reality in the perfect inverse is astonishing, and should be diagnosed. Maybe its simply a function of the fact that you obtain your scientific news from Glenn Beck and conservative blogs?

In fact the peer-reviewed literature has only reinforced the existence of AGW. Note the recent studies showing Hansen’s 1988 models to have accurately predicted greenhouse gas accumulation and its effect on temperature.http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Hansen_etal_1.html
CZ says:

May 16, 2007 at 1:16 pm

NEWSFLASH: The earth has been warming since the ice age and there ain’t a dang thing we can do about it period.

Algore and his storm trooper socialists are playing to the minions of concerned gullible joiner types who lust after another thing to worry about and another boogie-man to put on their protest list.

It amazes me how many there are out there. Here’s proof. You all gotta see this one! And don’t be drinking any liquid or you may spit it all over your monitor.

LINK

Chicken Little never had it so good.
Lorica says:

May 16, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Well Sev, looks like another whole group of GW folk for you to educate. I really wish for you, that it was just possible to teach these guys all at the same time. I hope you are up to it. Just know that I am with you, if only in Spirit. I know you can do this just one more time. – Lorica
CZ says:

May 16, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Here’s another thought. Maybe Greenpiece can enlist PETA to help by gathering up two of every animal. Then they can all jump on board this ship of fools with Algore at the wheel and sail off into the rising tide from the melting polar ice cap.

Rainbow Warriors indeed.
NC Cop says:

May 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm

LOVED that video CZ!! Absolutely priceless.

“Is passion supposed to replace common sense?”

One of the best lines I’ve ever heard.
Settembrini says:

May 16, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Severian, if you’re relying on Lyman et. al. for your “oceans are cooling” claim, know that the faulty pressure reading leading to such data have been fixed, and now shows warming in line with the long-term trend. Also problematic were the XBT’s which had warming bias for the 70’s, meaning the warming is even more pronounced than previously thought.
LINK
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Geez, another group of stunningly dense and uneducated global warming mediots just damned and determined to claim that everybody agrees, the science is settled, and to claim that anyone who doesn’t agree just has to be on the evil payroll of big oil. Grow up people, the very “arguments” (if you can be so charitable as to consider them arguments) the above posters bleat out are perfect proof that they themselves understand nothing about the subject with the exception that their masters have told them to go spread the faith. When presented with facts that run counter to their beliefs, they don’t go look for more information, when presented with links, they don’t read them and attempt to understand. What do they do? They run back to the leftist/greenie sites and frantically google trying to find someone who says they don’t have to listen, so that they don’t have to think or have their beliefs challenged.

I’ve done these discussions/debates to death, ST has tons of links I and others provided in her archives, and not once have any of the people who come in with the attitudes displayed above ever read them and attempted to understand them and then argue from the science or facts. It’s always “but we have peer reviewed stuff!” or “there is a consensus” or “he used to work for Big Oil.” As if peer review were either perfect (it’s not, I should know having sat on peer review panels), or that there are no peer reviewed articles that disagree with global warming alarmists (there are plenty), or that the entire global warming industry isn’t a multi-billion dollar franchise in its own right, dwarfing the amount of money spent on research by the people they claim are so biased. These people whined no end when the CEI offered $10,000 grants to people to critique, pro or con, the latest IPCC report, and made no mention of the fact that global warming alarmist chicken little Hansen got $250,000 from the Heinz foundation after he signed on as Kerry’s green adviser. If the CEI is corrupt, Hansen is 25 times as corrupt.

The AGW crowd have lied repeatedly, have slandered anyone who disagrees with them, and have acted exactly like a perverse combination of the Inquisition and the Crusades. It’s a religion, not science. They have made such stunning statements like “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” and “everyone has to decide a proper balance between being honest and being effective.”

CO2 causes global warming like cancer causes smoking. In the beginning, when temps started to rise, early ice core data showed CO2 going up along with temps. At that time, a couple of decades ago, it was not a bad hypothesis that CO2 caused warming, but science changes, and rational, non-ideologically blinded scientists have realized that the evidence doesn’t support the claims. Better resolution has shown that CO2 lags temp rise, so it cannot be the driver in warming. Solar and other factors dominate, but you can’t use the sun as an excuse to dominate people and enact sweeping socialist policies, so they feel the need to declare CO2 a pollutant.

Idiotic. Only one side of this debate is even attempting to have a rational discussion on it, and it ain’t the AGW proponents, who are only mildly less fanatical than Islamic extremists.

But I fully expect another long list of completely ignorant people with no understanding of the science lining up to come along here and lecture all of us about how wrong we are. Do yourselves a favor, liberate your minds from rigid ideology, and actually read and attempt to understand any of the many many sites that discuss this rationally and are considered “denier” sites. The science is not that hard to understand if you approach it with an open mind and an appropriate dose of skepticism. I’ll not be holding my breath waiting though, blue isn’t my best color.
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Hansen is, quite frankly, a quack hired gun for the green lobby. His “predictions” of temperature rise are at least off by a factor of 4, when you consider contamination of the ground data, he is probably off by almost an order of magnitude. He is a pretty poor example to use. He’s an egotistical hack, more interested in politics and his own self important whining than in science.
Settembrini says:

May 16, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Severian: The AGW crowd have lied repeatedly, have slandered anyone who disagrees with them, and have acted exactly like a perverse combination of the Inquisition and the Crusades.

Severian: …dense and uneducated global warming mediots….Idiotic. Only one side of this debate is even attempting to have a rational discussion on it, and it ain’t the AGW proponents, who are only mildly less fanatical than Islamic extremists….Hansen is, quite frankly, a quack hired gun for the green lobby…. He’s an egotistical hack, more interested in politics and his own self important whining than in science.

Thank you for these rational, slander-free arguments. Very enlightening.

The only hack here is you, recycling the same junk science that has been debunked over and over, and drawing asinine conclusions from data you clearly don’t understand. Funny you call proponents of AGW “liars,” seeing as how you’re the only person who has lied in this debate, claiming, against the most recent evidence, that the oceans are cooling, and now your claim (coincidentally, the claim du jour of the “I can play scientist on message boards” crowd) that warming precedes CO2 and therefore CO2 can’t be a driver. Of course, you leave out the fact that you refer only to glacial-interglacial periods (in all other periods CO2 leads temperatures), that this lag in no way affects what we know about the greenhouse effect and the current abnormally high concentrations of CO2, and that it can easibly be explained by the Milankovitch theory of ice ages.
Steve says:

May 16, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Jay K., how about you read the link I provided with actual SCIENTISTS questioning the human component. Good luck trying to find an oil-industry connection with them.

Typical. Present the alarmists with facts and they cover their ears and resort to playground antics.

The tide is turning, thank god…
Settembrini says:

May 16, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Steve – your list, compiled by Rush Limbaugh’s former producer for James Inhofe’s website, contains 13 scientists, four of whom have backgrounds in climate science. They each changed their minds for different reasons, some valid (in the sense that actual reasons are given, but those seem to ignore vital counterpoints), some not (take for example the first on the list, Allegre (a geochemist, btw), who, note, does not deny climate change, but only anthoropogenic, and bases this on the unknown causes of the disappearnce of the Snows of Kilimanjaro — as if the case rests on this fact alone, or at all). But the thing people like you can’t seem to grasp is that, for every 4 climate scientists you produce as skeptics, 400 can be produced as propenents of AGW theory. Yet you wonder why people ignore the very, very small minority and your silly little lists and instead suggest that, just maybe, it makes more sense to listen to the vast majority. Funny how Inhofe and Moran couldn’t get more than 2 skeptics to show up for his last hearing, and had to fly one of them in from Australia.
Tango says:

May 16, 2007 at 6:32 pm

One hopes, mistress, that this time around they’ll remember the UNICORNS!
Joe in SF says:

May 16, 2007 at 7:04 pm

I’m missing something.

Why is the overwhelming majority of the scientific community actively engaging in a conspiracy to pass off bad science as serious? Is it because they hate our freedoms? Those lucrative research grants? Do they have an irrational fear of SUVs? Do they hate the technology that science made possible?

I read constant rantings that climate scientists who are trying to fool us about global warming. I don’t read peer-reveiewed scientific papers disputing the analysis.

The Scientific Method is your friend. Use it!
gil says:

May 16, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Answer to Severian.

You know for such a long rant you provide no proof that Global Warming is not going on. Even the President as square mided as he is, has accepted what’s in front of his nose…. So why can’t you?

But that’s fine with me and others, you don’t need to accept anithing. The world is fast moving past your kind in the acceptance of the undeniable fact that the planet is getting warmer. There will always be “the world is flat kind of people” , but in the end they don’t matter, they never had and they never will.

That’s because in the end truth always wins.
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 7:15 pm

This is great! Sign up quick before the rush hits! Carbon Debits for everyone!
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 8:25 pm

That’s because in the end truth always wins.

Which is what’s starting to happen. Much to the chagrin and distaste of the AGW crowd.

No one argues that the planet hasn’t warmed, we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age, and still have not reached temperatures that were common during the Medieval Warm Period. But the amount of warming has been overstated, due to reliance on ground based data that is corrupted by various problems, including urban heat island effect, and a recently discovered issue with most of the temperature stations being painted with the wrong kind of paint that’s absorptive in IR rather than reflective, which coincidentally seems to have started happening about the time the major warming occurred. You can tell a lot about the mindset of the people involved in that when the satellite and radiosonde data didn’t show the same level of warming in the troposphere the rush was not to ask the question “which one is right?” but to find a “correction” to the satellite and balloon data.

Furthermore, CO2 is a minor contributer, not the major one, and the entire hysteria is based on grossly inaccurate computer models that assume it’s all CO2 and that positive feedback loops that have never been observed in nature (and which if they’d existed would have doomed the earth millions of years ago) are going to produce runaway temperature rise that will cook us all. It’s pure speculation, based on an assumption, a false assumption, that every bit of warming is due to CO2. Solar issues are dominant, and historically over geologic time track planetary temperature very well. The simple fact that the effect of increasing CO2 is logarithmic not linear is completely lost on people, if you double CO2 you do not get a doubling of effect. The atmosphere is already just about as opaque in the IR bands CO2 effects as it’s going to ever get.

How can so many do this? Easy, everyone has their own reasons. Some do it because they honestly believe it, not every scientist is rational, particularly when it’s their own work at stake. Others jump on the bandwagon because it’s a way to guarantee funding for their projects, they are telling their sponsors what they want to hear. Others do it because they feel it’s fine to misrepresent things and outright lie in order to accomplish a “greater social justice” issue like good socialist/marxists.

But, keep on patting yourselves on the back for “believing” in something you have no understanding of, and telling yourselves it proves just how enlightened and morally superior you are.
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 8:28 pm

And exactly as predicted, the pro warming crowd, when shown references and such, comes back with NOTHING regarding the science, just more character assassination and conspiracy claims about evil big oil and such. Do you people actually listen to yourselves? The same numbers game, the same BS about motives, the same lies and innuendo. SSDD. And you wonder why most conservatives don’t take you seriously…
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Settembrini, pull your head out of your nether regions, Milankovitch cycles only begin to describe the solar influence, if you haven’t been paying better attention than that you have a lot of remedial learning to do. Try reading the actual articles, or someone other than Real Climate for facts, I’ve caught them in too many lies for it not to be deliberate.
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 9:07 pm

I love the claim that this CO2 is different. Originally, CO2 was found as stated to go up with warming in paleoclimatology studies. The erroneous theory came out that CO2 was the cause not the effect. CO2 today is going up, due in part to human emissions. Ergo, CO2, man made, even though the minority of the CO2 in the atmosphere, is the cause. Better resolution shows that in the past, CO2 lags temperature rise, is an effect not a cause. Oops! How to salvage our pet theory that man made CO2 is the cause? We’ll say since it’s leading now it must be the cause. Hmmm. If CO2 can really accelerate warming to untenable levels, why did it not do it at temperatures and levels greater than today? Saying that now it’s leading so the effect of CO2 must be different is a desperate attempt to grasp at straws to save a pet theory.
Steve says:

May 16, 2007 at 10:01 pm

“You know for such a long rant you provide no proof that Global Warming is not going on. Even the President as square mided as he is, has accepted what’s in front of his noseâ€¦. So why can’t you?”

Gil, I’m trying REALLY hard to not label you an idiot, but it’s difficult. The argument ISN’T ABOUT WHETHER WARMING IS HAPPENING!!! It’s about what is CAUSING the warming. There are a growing number of people who believe that it is cyclical, a part of nature’s natural cycle. The other side believes that man is the primary cause. Got it YET?

And Settembrini, just how many on the UN’s esteemed panel are climate scientists? Heck, how many of them aren’t even scietists, no matter the field? I find it funny that when it’s YOUR side, it’s okay to have non-climatologists weigh in but when the other side does it, WHOA!!!

And if you think there isn’t BIG money to be had by perpetuating the man-made argument, well, you’re just burying your head in the sand…
Steve says:

May 16, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Hey Settembrini, does this guy meet your “standards?”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Severian says:

May 16, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Probably not, he’ll find something to complain about. Probably call him senile.

But to heck with Settembrini, THIS is important!
Crabby says:

May 17, 2007 at 2:24 am

I’m new here, but I had to chime in on a couple of points.

To Joe:

Why do you believe the scientific method is the basis for believing in AGW? Remember, the method, in its most generally accepted form, is based on suggesting hypotheses that can be tested by experiment. Where is the experimental support for the hypothesis of AGW? Attempts to test it generally center on computer models and their ability to make predictions. Those computer models have failed miserably to account for past temperature anomalies. Nevertheless, despite their inability to account for the past, we are supposed to believe they can reliably predict the future.

We are generally shown graphical representations of rising CO2 levels, and graphical representations of increasing global temperature anomalies, and we are assured that there is a cause and effect relationship. Nevermind that considerable evidence suggests that, at least in the past, CO2 levels were a lagging indicator of warming, not a cause. AGW advocates insist this time it is different, and that CO2 is leading the way. The evidence? The computer models of course, and the faith of the coopted scientists who have joined the religion of global warming. Remember, faith, personal philosophy, popularity and consensus have no place in science. Hypotheses should only be taken seriously when they can serve as the basis for accurate predictions (outcomes of well-designed experiments). So far that support is entirely missing. Further, there are so many weak aspects to this “scientific” hypothesis it is shocking that it is taken seriously.
biogeek says:

May 17, 2007 at 8:23 am

I am puzzled by the right’s opposition to reducing fossil fuel consumption. Even if the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong, and climate change is not man made (which I certainly do not believe), isn’t a reduction in air pollution and a decrease in our reliance on middle east oil supplies a good thing on it’s own? Are you guys pro smog? Do you want to continue to pour money into the coffers of Saudi princes? The right wing was happy to start a war on far less evidence of a national threat, so what gives? What’s wrong with putting a little more conserve in conservatism?
Settembrini says:

May 17, 2007 at 11:00 am

Severian, pretty much everything you wrote in your 8:25 post is either flat wrong or a red herring. That BS might pass for clear thinking on a blog comments section where “Algore” is the enemy, but in the real world facts matter.

First, your assertion that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than it is now: WRONG. Classic Lindzen. Betcha you found this one in Newsweek. Didn’t bother to check it out though, right? Start with Tom Crowley. the MWP matched EARLY TO MID 20th century warming — we’ve passed that now.

Next lie – Surface temp readings are off because they don’t account for the urban heat island effect. WRONG. What do you think this is, 1995? This claim is simply mind-boggling in light of a decade’s worth of surface temperature studies. Try Parker, Nature, 2004. Everything’s been adjusted for, and regardless, ocean warming (never copped to that lie, did you?) as even Lindzen admits, corroborates the surface trends.

One more lie: models are premised on the notion that CO2 is the primary forcing, that nothing else affects temperature, and they don’t consider other forcings. Are you high? Do you think you can pass off such pablum as “analysis” and you won’t get called on it? Or are you just projecting when you call everyone else “idiots?” Every model takes into account forcings. Every climate scientist takes into account relative forcings, including the sun, volcanoes, water vapor, and other GHG’s. And you can’t name one scientist who doesn’t understand the effect of doubling CO2 — a rise in temperature of 2-4.5 degrees C.
barracuda says:

May 17, 2007 at 11:13 am

biogeek-

you are not going to get answers to those kinds of obvious questions, nor is Joe in SF going to get an answer as to why the global community of scientists would engage in this conspiracy, but at the same time the most interested parties, oil companies, are somehow the most honest.

the only point for the right wing, is to try and make the “soft” “tree-huggers” look stupid, presumably so real morons like james inhofe can get elected. people like toldjah here mainly serve as useful idiots for their republican overlords. it comes down to this: most modern republicans, and by this i mean W supporters and their ilk, have stopped thinking for themselves, so you cannot ask them to answer direct question for which talking points have not been provided by Rush.

i realize i will now be attacked for all kinds of reasons. so be it. i’m not a scientist, i cannot argue all the points on their technical merits, and i admit this (but neither can 99% of the people who post on this topic on the internet, despite what they may think). but i have read a lot about these issues, and attended talks and lectures, including speakers brought into graduate school classes, and i am pretty convinced there is a human element to global warming.

and besides, your points about the other reasons for reducing oil consumption are, to me, extremely obvious and commonsensical. always bear in mind- you cannot expect rational responses form the kinds of people who support george bush. they gave up rationality LONG ago.
Settembrini says:

May 17, 2007 at 11:18 am

Steve – you’re joking, right? An interview with a meteoroligist in an Energy Co-op’s newsletter is proof of a serious doubt of AGW? (Note – I’m not the one who suggested this man was senile). The guy’s theory is premised on Erik the Red’s journals for Christ’s sake. His outdated version of archeological climatology goes by the motto: “A climatologist’s proper tool is the shovel.” It’s almost embarrasing how desperate the coal lobby has become in their attempt to escape the coming CO2 regulations.

You realize that Reid Bryson is the same guy who predicted an Ice Age in the 70’s, right? The same guy the deniers bring up over and over again as “proof” that scientists don’t know what they’re talking about? Of course you didn’t.

Steve – please, educate yourself, read a journal or two.
Crabby says:

May 17, 2007 at 11:19 am

Energy decisions ought to be driven by market forces, not by the rantings of a pseudo-scientific religion. This, along with the corruption of the scientific method, is probably the most malignant aspect of the global warming movement. An industrialized nation cannot compete with others if it is fettered by regulations and restrictions. None of the alternative sources usually trotted out as examples are economically competitive. Ethanol and solar, for example, are much too costly, unless subsidized by tax dollars. Our economy cannot function properly in a climate of hyper-regulation, along with the burdens of taxation needed to artificially push us towards “acceptable” energy sources. Besides, it would only be a matter of time before the left found problems with the alternatives as well. Just look at the opposition to nuclear plants in the past, and note the fact that windmills are already under attack for killing birds. If one were cynical (and I am), it would not be hard to come to the conclusion that the movement is not so much about saving the world, but about global justice and hobbling western industrialized nations.

Having said that, however, I am fully supportive of the research and development of new technologies and new energy sources. However, those sources must prove themselves in the market. In my opinion, our energy needs in the future will be supplied by a variety of sources and, as other sources become technologically and economically competetive, they will become more important. In the meantime, the last thing we need is an economy shackled by guilt and fear-mongering. Don’t you see the hypocrisy in preventing the development of fossil fuel resources in the US, while loudly decrying our dependence on foreign sources? Further, do you realize that Al Gore is heavily invested in the carbon credit industry? Like economic vampires, contributing nothing to the economy, Gore and his co-investors would sit idly by and suck the lifeblood and vitality out of our nation’s economic output and competitiveness, enriching themselves while posing as environmental messiahs. It would be the height of folly to allow such fear mongers, whose motives do not bear close scrutiny, to have control of our economy.
Severian says:

May 17, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Semb, nice recitation of the usual BS. You hysterically state 2-4.5 degrees due to a doubling of CO2 as if it was a fact and not the product of a deranged computer model. You just regurgitate the same drivel that has not been proven over and over as if that answers the question. The question about the logarithmic nature of absorption in these bands is important, but you neatly sidestep it and say “because I said so” as if that is any kind of a technical argument, which indicates that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. You drone on, when the entire thrust of your argument is that the science of the AGW crowd is correct, ignoring the massive distortions and mistakes that have been made, and attempting to dismiss the counter facts with a sniff and wave of your hand.

Let’s see now, your first post here started off with insults, then you complained about other people’s tone. Predictable, and we’ve seen it innumerable times before. You then dodge any technical issues by saying “that’s wrong this is right” as if that makes some kind of sense. Then you do the usual attempts to discredit and insult anyone who disagrees or any scientists who don’t toe the line. And then act as if you’ve said something intelligent and persuasive.

It’s the standard approach, completely predictable, and you’re as bad at it as most, perhaps worse.

The science is NOT settled, no matter how much you say it is. Your “answers” are not answers, just regurgitation of the same misrepresentations that are pushed over and over again. It’s obvious you view anyone scientist who disagrees with the same distaste and anger of the early Catholic church towards Lutherans.

You are the typical liberal arguing for AGW, it’s a religion to you, you have your saints and your devils, and it’s obviously a matter of faith. Heck, even as biased and incompetent as the IPCC is, they have had to continually reduce their predictions of doom and gloom as more evidence has come out. But even that doesn’t sway the true believer.

If I ever see someone of your ilk actually take the time and display the smarts to argue against what someone says technically instead of just saying “that’s not true this is” (that means explaining why it’s false) and instead of attacking the credibility of the source and not the technical argument, I’d probably die of shock. But you disappoint just like all the others. It’s a common liberal conceit and tactic, you see the same thing when liberals rail against things like Fox News. It’s biased they shriek. Really, give me an example that’s not from their opinion shows. They’re biased is the retort, never an example. Same thing here, I’ve seen it particularly with their treatment of “skeptic” web sites and people. They’re wrong, he’s biased, he’s paid off, never a detailed deconstruction of the facts and arguments, just more innuendo and accusations. And until you can do that, say something other than “yes it is true” or “they are biased and bought off” you will continue to show your true stripes.
Severian says:

May 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm

The guy’s theory is premised on Erik the Red’s journals for Christ’s sake.

It’s always damned inconvenient when historical fact interferes with your distortions isn’t it? And as expected, you said nothing about his technical arguments, just attempted character assassination.

No wonder liberals don’t like history, it points out the flaws in their positions with such regularity.

Still waiting for that detailed exposition of how a gas thats already near saturation in the atmosphere, and which humans can claim responsibility for only a few percent of, can cause massive warming and how that is all the fault of industry.
Crabby says:

May 17, 2007 at 1:09 pm

One of the problems with AGW theory is a matter of what I would call statistical navel-gazing. During the period from 1940 to about 1975, there was a decline in temperature anomaly, leading to the general acceptance of the possibility of a coming ice age. This was not the province of a single individual, as has been suggested here, but the “consensus” of many in the scientific community. That consensus collapsed when temperatures began to rise in 1975. The rise from 1975 to 1998 has now given rise to a new “consensus” that we are now heading into a dangerously hot period. Nevermind that the record indicates much hotter times in the past, along with much higher carbon dioxide levels, we are being asked to believe that this time it is a problem. Using temperature data from the Hadley Centre (you can find their various datasets at this link: LINK) you can see that several distinct periods have occured. From 1870 to 1905 there was a decline in global temperature, from 1906 to 1940, an increase in global temperature, another decline in temperaure from 1940 to 1975, and from 1975 to 1998 a relatively sharp rise in temperature. Note that the last 10 years, from 1997 to the present, have shown very little change, and even a slight drop in sea surface temperatures (SST). All of these variations have occurred while CO2 levels have continued to exhibit a steady rise. Note also that the original models of AGW DID treat CO2 as the sole forcing agent for temperature change. It was only after discovering that the models in that form could not account for the variations mentioned above that other variables (fudge factors) were introduced to make the models retroactively more consistent with the temperature record. Note that each of those “corrections” has also led to predictions that are less dire. It should not be lost on a real scientist, that tailoring a model to make it fit the record is not experimental support for the model. It is simply a re-design to produce a desired outcome. Until the models are stable and are capable of accurately predicting future events, they should be viewed with the same skepticism that incorrect “consenses” from earlier periods deserve.
Steve says:

May 17, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Settembrini,

Yep, just more character assassination. Never mind that he’s the most cited climatologist in the world. Never mind the 5 books and 230 publications. Never mind that he’s on the UN’s Global 500 Honor Roll. Because the article appears in an energy co-op newsletter, let’s ignore him. RIIIIIIGHT…

By the way, you never answered an earlier question. In the IPCC report, how many of the thousands of signers are climatologists? How many are scientists period? The answer is out there. Don’t think you’ll like what it is though…
Steve says:

May 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Biogeek,

Reducing oil consumption IS a GREAT thing, both to reduce air pollution AND to get us out from under the thumb of ME countries.

If that’s ALL that the Global Warming alarmists were advocating, we wouldn’t be having this debate. It goes FAAAR beyond that, however…
Severian says:

May 17, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Excellent points Crabby, particularly wrt the modeling. Adjusting a model with “fudge” factors that are not well understood with respect to the causal relationships to make a model match the real world data is a very poor excuse for proof. And as you say, the fact that every time this is done the predictions of temperature rise decrease in magnitude and that the models have yet to demonstrate anything approaching a viable track record of accurately predicting events should lead to a significant skepticism, not a wholesale drive to realign the entire world’s economies.

Your mention of the cooling trend in the 70’s is apt, I was an undergrad then, doing what undergrads do which is act as slave labor for the profs. It was so cold that the university had shut down the lights in all the hallways to save power, power plants were at capacity and power line failures due to ice and overloads were common. It was a surreal atmosphere, you could easily imagine an impending ice age. I was helping my professor monitor solar activity by running a telescope, taking pics, developing film, and counting sunspots with a loop until I thought I would go blind. His comment to all the global cooling hysteria was that based on what he was seeing, in a decade or two they’d be claiming we were all going to boil instead of freeze. It was a humorous off the cuff comment, but it’s proven to be remarkably prescient.

I spent a fair length of time working on propagation of lasers through turbulent atmospheres in support of an optical phase conjugation task, and in IR imaging and spectroscopy, so I got to understand the optical properties of the atmosphere in both visible and IR wavebands pretty well. This is one of the reasons I remain so incredulous with respect to catastrophic results from increasing CO2 levels, there is just not that much more effect on transmission that increasing CO2 above current levels will produce. The mechanism by which warming from CO2 is alleged to occur is at odds with the predicted effects unless ever less likely feedback mechanisms are introduced, mechanisms that cannot be supported by anything other than model tweaks and watching the output. They have not been observed in nature in the past, but suddenly we’re supposed to give credence to the “fact” that the not only exist but will be catastrophic based on the output of computer models that have not demonstrated accurate predictive abilities. Tweaking a model so that it more accurately fits data in the past is absolutely no proof that it’s predictions will be accurate, and yet the AGW crowd want us to base radical and global changes on the basis of them.
Crabby says:

May 17, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Severian,

It really would be comical if the outcome of the discussion were not so serious. The continued tweaking of the models to make them fit the record better, is not evidence. The models at this point are actually part of the hypothesis, not experimental support. The circular reasoning is preposterous. The model assumes CO2 causes temperature change, but it can’t account for what we already know happened. So then “adjustments” are made for things like particulates, volcanism, solar energy, etc., never questioning the underlying proposition. Yet the media, and others with little scientific background, continue to point to the models as evidence, giving them much more credence than they deserve.
Settembrini says:

May 17, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Severian: You’re criticism of me is that I haven’t addressed the substance of the arguments and have instead attacked the sources. That I simply state “I’m right, you’re wrong.” This is rich coming from you, who, in several long posts, have yet to offer one accurate piece of data on the issues. I’ve offered you cites to the rebuttals in journals to the myriad false assertions you’ve made, and you’ve offered no response other than to baselessly attack me as a “liberal.” You’ve offered one anecdote regarding how cold you remember it being in college, and some information on your knowledge of lasers, as if that tangential information disrupts everything we know (empirically, not based on models) re: the greenhouse effect. The vast majority of your posts have been ad hominem attacks. You are a terrible advocate for your position.
Settembrini says:

May 17, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Crabby,

You’re missing the forest for the trees. First, it is simply inaccurate to state that there was a “consensus” surrounding the global cooling theory.

But more importantly, the existence of trends within arbitrarily selected dates is nothing more than cherry-picking to obscure the long-term warming trend. The existence of those trends within trends only shows what everyone already admits — CO2 is not the only forcing in play. But it is not coincidence that the rise since ’75 has corresponded with an explosion of CO2 emissions, and we see this because no other forcing accounts for the rise.
Severian says:

May 17, 2007 at 4:41 pm

That’s rich, accusing the other side of cherry picking data. The AGW crowd have a long and sordid history of cherry picking data and ignoring inconvenient data.

Like, say, making a statement like “since 75 has corresponded with an explosion of CO2 emissions” which ignores the fact that a majority of the temperature rise over the last 100 years occurred before this “explosive” rise in emissions, in other words preceded the rise in CO2.

Another example they are fond of mentioning is that Lyman’s changed from a cooling to stable temps over the past 5 years for ocean temps. Lyman, like a good scientist, modified his position in response to concerns, a behavior alien to people like, say, Mann and his supporters with their “hockey stick” debacle. I personally think Lyman was a bit too quick to concede this, as there are still significant doubts about the corrections to temperature measuring protocols and data, and deep ocean temperatures and their related effects, I think the issue is still open. No matter, even if we give the AGW crowd that adjustment, a 5 year period during what is claimed are incredible CO2 rises and unprecedented temperature rises, and we see the longest period of no temp rise the oceans have demonstrated over the past 30 years or so. When the oceans were going up in temp, people like Settembrini had no problem claiming that was proof that CO2 was driving temps up. When the behavior changes, that’s not proof of anything according to them.

If data supports their position it’s proof, if it doesn’t it’s just noise. It’s a convenient attitude, but it is not science, it is agenda driven ideology masquerading as science. You see the same thing in the lack of a rush to reevaluate surface temperature records to account for measurement problems. A hand is waved, and they are said to be “adequately adjusted.” And this is done by and large by the exact same people and organizations who have a vested interest in continuing this hysteria, talk about the fox guarding the hen house.

Settembrini, you really don’t have much of a clue, you whine about lasers indicates you don’t understand, or are deliberately ignoring the issue. It’s not lasers, although I do know a great deal about those, it’s about the atmospheric effects on propagation of light, you know, in other words it’s all about a method of measuring the earth’s atmosphere, it’s composition, and effects at multiple wavelengths and over a wide variety of locations/areas. It gives me significant experience and insight into exactly how the atmosphere absorbs, scatters, and reflects energy over a broad band of wavelengths. And the postulation about CO2s effect does not jive with what I know first hand to be true about the atmosphere and IR. At least I have first hand experience, all you can do is make snide inferences and quote alarmist articles while pretending to understand the issues. You have never once addressed the issue of absorption vs concentration for atmospheric CO2, either you completely don’t understand, or you are being disingenuous.

Once again, CO2 is nearing saturation with respect to its effect on atmospheric transmission at the wavelengths of interest. What is so difficult to understand about that? Oh yeah, it doesn’t support the belief that CO2 will have an ever increasing effect on temperature, so it is the real “inconvenient truth.”
Severian says:

May 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Once again, an excellent observation Crabby. If this were only, say, the kind of theological argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, most of us wouldn’t care if they deluded themselves. But it’s far more sinister than that, these AGW proponents want to use this as the basis to turn the entire world upside down, at extreme expense and with great damage to global economies, and also, and perhaps more importantly, with great disservice to the very poor, underdeveloped countries they claim to be concerned about. Try telling the world’s poor countries that it really is in their best interest for them to remain energy poor and backward, that it’s good for them to not have clean water and affordable energy, it’s bad for them to have a vibrant economy. Carbon trading, a Ponzi scheme where you take from the rich and give to the middlemen, and as Mel Brooks noted in “History of the World,” F the poor.

One of the things I’ve observed is how people who make computer simulations and models can get so completely tied up in them that they become incapable of rationally evaluating them and their accuracy. It’s kind of scary, a bizarre form of obsession and paranoia. It’s understandable from a human nature standpoint, these are huge models and are often the result of years of effort programming and scrounging for funding by making promises of development schedules and accuracy that they know they will probably be unable to keep. It’s like having someone tell you your baby’s ugly, it may very well be true, but how many parents can see it? Some of them just flat out don’t seem to care as long as they have their model and it’s funding, some of them really get so wrapped up in it they don’t see themselves how irrational their behavior is, it’s easy to fool yourself. This is an odd sociological phenomena, kind of the video game addiction response for highly intelligent people, substitute their simulated model of reality for World of Warcraft and you can see the parallels.

When we were developing the atmospheric models for the phase conjugation work I mentioned, we were fortunate in that the ability to do this was more self limiting, as we had pretty unambiguous ways to test the model and our theories. Run a bunch of experiments, scratch our heads, write our simulations, make a bunch of predictions, and then run another bunch of experiments, and repeat until we got it right, and it did take a while to get it right. But when we made a prediction, measured the atmosphere for that day, and did our shots, it was pretty evident if we were right or wrong. And even then, there were certain longer term atmospheric effects like undulation that while we were able to accurately predict and model them, we were never able to come up with a real understanding of why the atmosphere behaved this way. But at least we could predict it.
Crabby says:

May 17, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Settembrini

Not so. Checkout CO2 trends, the Mauna Loa site is a good one, and you will find that CO2 levels have risen with a smooth curve for many decades. There has been no “explosion” in CO2 emission as you characterize it. Further, I remember the Ice Age panic of the 1970s. I lived through it. I saw news programs dedicated to it, and I read of agricultural and geological proposals to try to forestall the cooling. It was hardly the crazy postulations of just a few individuals as you suggest. Unfortunately, it also happened during a period that marked the beginning of a very unhealthy, obsessive interest by the news media in all things speculative in science. Scientists, at one time, were more free to speculate and discuss “what if” scenarios without an eavesdropping media generating panic. Unfortunately, rather than responding by being more circumspect with their speculation, a number of scientists have decided to form an unholy alliance with the media in hopes of generating favorable publicity for their speculation. Where do you think all of this talk about “consensus” comes from? These are no longer scientific investigations, they are publicity campaigns.

BTW, you made my point exactly. It is inapropriate to look at a small time window and make predictions. For example, are the most recent ten years, which have shown little or no warming, an indication that the future holds no further warming? If you say no, I would agree, and I would say that the last 32 years since 1975 is also too short a window to make climatological predictions. Indeed, 100 years is too short. If we use that standard and look at things from a more long-term perspective, then we see that there has been gentle warming as we recovered from the little ice age. That rise has included short periods of decline, stasis and rise, due to the complex interactions of many variables. Nothing more can be said with certitude than that.

I would also put it to you that temperature proxies used for reconstructing temperature records further back are highly prone to error and misinterpretation. For example, we know that there was a medieval warm period, but the temperature proxies do not give us definitive answers as to how warm it was. As I recall, the IPCC has stated recently that a medieval warm period, warmer than our own, is within the error ranges of the current models, even when Mann’s data is considered, and certainly there is anecdotal evidence to suggest it was warmer.
Sunsettommy says:

May 17, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Severian: The AGW crowd have lied repeatedly, have slandered anyone who disagrees with them, and have acted exactly like a perverse combination of the Inquisition and the Crusades.

Settembrini,

Please name those people.
Sunsettommy says:

May 17, 2007 at 10:31 pm

And Steve, the tide is not going to turn because, whatever your ideology, it’s going to keep on getting warmer.

Jim Harrison,

The warming has slowed to a crawl since 1998.

This despite the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Why is that?
Sunsettommy says:

May 17, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Not so. Checkout CO2 trends, the Mauna Loa site is a good one, and you will find that CO2 levels have risen with a smooth curve for many decades. There has been no “explosion” in CO2 emission as you characterize it.

Crabby,

Since 1974.

The yearly increases from 1974 has made for a very straight line.A slow line of increase of TOTAL CO2 levels.

I showed the Mauna Loa CO2 chart to a Hydrometerologist at another forum.

He amazingly said it was rising exponentially.

I then showed him the raw data showing that it is not so.

Then I suggested that he use a ruler on the chart I provided and see that it is indeed a very straight line.

He never answered.

I have showed this to others and they shut up after using a ruler.

LOL.
Sunsettommy says:

May 17, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Why can’t the AGW fanatics go to Al Gore’s MANSION.

Surely that place qualifies as an ark?
Sunsettommy says:

May 17, 2007 at 11:07 pm

But more importantly, the existence of trends within arbitrarily selected dates is nothing more than cherry-picking to obscure the long-term warming trend. The existence of those trends within trends only shows what everyone already admits — CO2 is not the only forcing in play. But it is not coincidence that the rise since â€˜75 has corresponded with an explosion of CO2 emissions, and we see this because no other forcing accounts for the rise.

Comment by Settembrini @ 5/17/2007 – 3:53 pm

Umm the data fails to support your claim of an “explosion of CO2 emissions”

The 1997-1998 CO2 PPM increase was the biggest on record measured and by gosh it was the massive El-Ninyo year! It has been smaller since then.

Try this link:

LINK
Sunsettommy says:

May 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm

Settembrini, you really don’t have much of a clue, you whine about lasers indicates you don’t understand, or are deliberately ignoring the issue. It’s not lasers, although I do know a great deal about those, it’s about the atmospheric effects on propagation of light, you know, in other words it’s all about a method of measuring the earth’s atmosphere, it’s composition, and effects at multiple wavelengths and over a wide variety of locations/areas. It gives me significant experience and insight into exactly how the atmosphere absorbs, scatters, and reflects energy over a broad band of wavelengths. And the postulation about CO2s effect does not jive with what I know first hand to be true about the atmosphere and IR. At least I have first hand experience, all you can do is make snide inferences and quote alarmist articles while pretending to understand the issues. You have never once addressed the issue of absorption vs concentration for atmospheric CO2, either you completely don’t understand, or you are being disingenuous.

Once again, CO2 is nearing saturation with respect to its effect on atmospheric transmission at the wavelengths of interest. What is so difficult to understand about that? Oh yeah, it doesn’t support the belief that CO2 will have an ever increasing effect on temperature, so it is the real “inconvenient truth.”

Comment by Severian @ 5/17/2007 – 4:41 pm

This link might educate him:

Cold Facts on Global Warming

LINK
Severian says:

May 18, 2007 at 7:28 am

Why can’t the AGW fanatics go to Al Gore’s MANSION.

Surely that place qualifies as an ark?

Maybe then can all hide out in Clinton’s Presidential Library, after all, it’s in ARKansas!

The “explosion of CO2” line is a corker ain’t it?

CO2 is going up pretty darned linearly, but the level of industrial society has been growing rapidly, that is, man’s contribution has gone up as the world has gotten more industrialized and more affluent. But CO2 hasn’t risen at the same rate as human expansion? Why, that means that humans contribution to CO2 levels are pretty insignificant, but that doesn’t sell social change so they pretend we are the major cause.

The whole AGW alarmist argument rests on an incredibly flimsy foundation:

1 – CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for most or all of the warming observed, which is patently not true, particularly in light of Svensmark’s work on clouds, cosmic rays, and solar activity. Just solar effect on clouds alone appears to account for up to 2/3 of the observed warming over the past century.

2 – Man is responsible for the CO2 rise, again, demonstrably not true, we are a drop in the bucket compared to natural forces. It may salve the ego of some to think we have that large of an effect, but we’re pretty insignificant compared to nature.

3 – Increasing CO2 levels will lead to runaway warming, again demonstrably false, we are near saturation, and the only way you can postulate runaway warming is by twidling with the knobs on a simulation to introduce positive feedback loops that have never been observed, and if they did exist would have doomed the planet millions of years ago to being an uninhabitable ball.

Even more basically, the whole idea of a “global average temperature” is kind of useless. For a system as large, chaotic, and diverse as the planets atmosphere, a simple average is a useless statistic. I can show you distributions that give a mean value of, say, 50 deg C where the whole planet is 50 deg, the poles are at 0 and the equator is at 100, or the poles are at 40 and the equator at 60. I defy anyone to tell me that the condition where the ocean is boiling at the equator and frozen at the poles is the same thing as the others, but all three will have the same global average temperature. It’s a nearly useless metric.

And even that metrics value is suspect, it’s curious that the same year that the number of ground stations were drastically cut marked the same year that temperatures spiked upwards in the data. Discontinuities like that should make the hair stand up on the backs of the necks of scientists everywhere. There are just not enough well calibrated temperature measuring stations to give a temp distribution that is reliable enough to make sweeping pronouncements. Add to that the fact that it’s becoming apparent that the stations are often not setup right, not painted correctly, located near buildings or other heat sources, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the baseline temp data indicating temperature rises is probably overstated, the real temp increase is less than claimed. Which is what the satellite data has been showing all along, but since the ground data gave the answer the alarmists wanted, they “corrected” the satellite data to match, when they should have been looking closer at the ground data.

This entire issue is overhyped and being used as a lever to enact social changes that are not justified. It’s a perversion of science in the worst way, as bad as the misuse of genetics to justify genocide in the name of eugenics and racial purity.
Sunsettommy says:

May 18, 2007 at 11:02 am

Not so. Checkout CO2 trends, the Mauna Loa site is a good one, and you will find that CO2 levels have risen with a smooth curve for many decades. There has been no “explosion” in CO2 emission as you characterize it.

I forgot to mention that Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring station only covers a REGIONAL area.It is not represenative of worldwide Atmospheric CO2 level.

Just like SURFACE temperature data.It covers a very limited area and subject to possible regional bias because of the pacity of worldwide data sampling points.

Satellite temperature data and Sea surface temperature data are more valid since it is WORLDWIDE in coverage.

That is why AGW’s hate Satellites.

LOL
Severian says:

May 18, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I forgot to mention that Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring station only covers a REGIONAL area.It is not represenative of worldwide Atmospheric CO2 level.

You bring up a point I’ve not seen discussed adequately, which is, is it wise to measure atmospheric CO2 from an active volcano? I mean, why is Mauna Loa chosen as a site for this? I can understand wanting to measure it in the middle of the ocean away from land masses, but wouldn’t some place like Christmas Island be a better choice?
Sunsettommy says:

May 18, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Severian:

You asked questions,

You bring up a point I’ve not seen discussed adequately, which is, is it wise to measure atmospheric CO2 from an active volcano? I mean, why is Mauna Loa chosen as a site for this? I can understand wanting to measure it in the middle of the ocean away from land masses, but wouldn’t some place like Christmas Island be a better choice?

Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa

C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf

Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California 92093-0444, U.S.A.
Period of Record
1958-2004

SNIP:

Trends

The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.

Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

LINK
Severian says:

May 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Thanks for the info/link Sunsettommy. I’d be curious as to how they exclude volcanic emissions, do they monitor the active vents and have a method for predicting their effect on the general readings? I can understand using a remote location away from human activity, one of the reasons Christmas Island came to mind, although if you were to setup a station there now there would be inevitable issues with relating measurements from different locales.
Sunsettommy says:

May 18, 2007 at 5:07 pm

This should help.

From:

USGS

Hawaii Volcano Observatory

Volcanic gas Measurements on Mauna Loa are an expanded challenge

LINK
Bluedog49 says:

May 18, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Do any of you remember the Tobacco Institute? For many years throughout the 60’s and 70’s, the Tobacco Institute, which was funded by the tobacco industry, paid people to write opinion pieces about how there was no real scientific evidence that tobacco caused lung cancer. The medical science community objected to the Tobacco Institute’s propaganda with the complaint that none of its findings were peer reviewed.

Just thought I’d point that out. Food for thought.
Severian says:

May 18, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Yup, they were just as dishonest as the global warming alarmists and the IPCC. Good point bluedog!
Severian says:

May 18, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Having sat on peer review committees and also having my own work submitted to the process, I can tell you it is not the be all and end all of accuracy and such that lay people seem to think it is. It can, and often is, very flawed, even when people are trying to do their best, and can be cynically manipulated in the worst ways as well. One of the reasons I no longer work with academia is the old say is too true: Why are the battles in academia so vicious? Because the stakes are so small. If you add in funding to the usual ego driven agendas in some departments, it can get really ugly in a hurry. Even in the cases where no real political or personality biases exist, most of the people on the panel have their own work and lives to attend to, so even if they are honest and ethical and seriously try and do a good job they are limited in the amount of depth they can go into when reviewing work.

This article is right on the money in my experience:

How many times in the past year as global warming has become a headline issue have you heard a liberal media member or Hollywood elite talk about a consensus of peer reviewed scientists?

So much so that you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one, correct?

As an example, pop singer Sheryl Crow during her recent Stop Global Warming College tour would toss the term “peer-reviewed science” around to her audience like a frisbee, as if she had any idea what it actually meant.

With that in mind, a Senior Fellow in Political Economy for the Independent Institute, Dr. Robert Higgs, published an article Monday that should be required reading for folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his followers (emphasis added throughout):

I have served as a peer reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer of research proposals for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and a number of large private foundations. I was the principal investigator of a major NSF-funded research project in the field of demography. So, I think I know something about how the system works.

It does not work as outsiders seem to think.

Tell us more, Doctor:

Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.

As for the other buzzword folks like Gore, Crow, and Laurie David like to throw around:

At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.

Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the “best” journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut casesâ€•until it becomes impossible to deny their findings, a time that often comes only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea’s bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives.
Great White Rat says:

May 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

At one time, “scientific consensus” held that the earth is flat and the sun revolved around it. And anyone who dissented was condemned as a heretic and a denier. It’s not too dissimilar from the antics of the global-warming devotees today.

In the end, “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. Science is not decided by voting. Something is either a proven fact, or it’s a theory. The idea that man is responsible for global warming is hardly a proven fact, despite the cult-like fanaticism of its followers.
Crabby says:

May 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Severian:

You are right, the peer review process is a flawed, but it still beats an unchecked flow of “information” submitted by people who may or may not be quailified and those who may or may not have an agenda. Flawed or not, it is the only process we have to try and weed out bad science. However, you are right, in that the peer review process can be hijacked by members who are part of a consensus.

Unfortunately, in the case of anthropogenic global warming activist scientists, along with their fellow travelers at the journals and those who fund research, are in a position to enforce an orthodoxy. As has been mentioned previously in this thread, this has happened before, and it will happen again. I hesitate to call this process a conspiracy, but when it happens, it seems like agenda-driven scientists are aided by powerful forces, such as the media or government, which empowers them and enables them to stifle dissent. For those who don’t believe the global warming movement is enforcing orthodoxy and stifling dissent, consider a few examples:

– A number in the media have suggested that dissent in this area should be called “climate change denial”, and that such dissenters are criminals. Trials, like those for the Nazis at Nuremberg, have even been proposed.

– Heidi Cullen, chief climatologist for the weather channel, has proposed de-certifying any meteorologist who does not tow the AGW line.

– George Taylor, David Legates and Patrick Michaels, state climatologists from Washington, Delaware and Virginia, respectively, have all been fired or threatened by their governors for having the wrong opinions on global warming.

– Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball has received death threats after speaking out on global warming issues.

These examples are not isolated. Global warming skeptics are, in general, marginalized and called crackpots. It is small wonder that many scientists prefer to remain silent on the issue, especially when speaking out could literally mean losing or limiting their careers. Unfortunately, it will take courage on the part of these scientists to bring the curtain down on this charade. The truth will eventually emerge when another cooling period occurs, but probably too late to prevent handing over control of much of the economy and much of the freedom in our lives to enviro-fascists.
Severian says:

May 19, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Peer review is better than nothing, except in cases where it’s used as a weapon to enforce orthodoxy. You’re right that it’s usually better than nothing, in much the same way as the old saying “Democracy is the worst system in the world except for everything else.” It’s flawed, but it’s what we got. I get a kick though at people who treat it like some kind of blessing from on high and an infallible check system, cause it sure ain’t. And as you note, it can and is often abused. And too often it acts like an echo chamber, when everyone involved in the process is of the same mind it doesn’t even take a conspiracy or bad intentions for it to act to preserve the status quo.

In 5 to 10 years max I believe we’ll be in another cooling phase, perhaps a significant one. Unfortunately, given the current political climate by then we’ll be hamstrung with all manner of idiotic regulations based on poor science that, like most laws and regulations, will live on with their negative effects long after they’ve been proven to be unnecessary.

And to further gall everyone like us, the usual suspects will claim that the cooling is due to the laws, regardless of the fact that no real reductions have occurred in CO2, and even if CO2 was the culprit they claim not enough time would have elapsed for reducing it to have an effect even if it had been reduced. And the press and greenies and governments will all publicize their “success” story regardless of facts just as they are pushing this AGW story regardless of facts.
Severian says:

May 19, 2007 at 10:44 pm

In addition to the fact that we are near saturation with regards to the effect of atmospheric CO2, that is, pumping more into the air won’t make much difference, the following is illustrative of just how small an effect humans have:

LINK

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

“If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

“That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” he said.

“We couldn’t do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates.”

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as “The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2” and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

“The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

“It’s become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,” he said.
sunsettommy says:

May 23, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Settembrini,

Where are you?

Has all the postings since a week ago scare you off?
sunsettommy says:

May 23, 2007 at 6:58 pm

At my website as a Site Administrator.

We have had a total of TWO AGW members since the forum was funded in March.All the rest have been rational.

The funny part is that those TWO have been BANNED! Just those two.

The rest have been good and they are skeptics.

I have detected a trend on many forums I go to that AGW’s are in retreat.They seem to have just one website they drool over.Realclimate

A website that contains several discredited authors of foolish climate claims.

LOL
Severian says:

May 23, 2007 at 7:37 pm

The pro-AGW crowd generally act like a bunch of power mad barbarians, more in line with members of the Inquisition than logical and rational scientists sunsettommy. It’s no surprise they behaved in a way that caused them to be banned. I think some of them do it deliberately when their arguments are going nowhere, then they can rationalize it in their minds that they are really right and it’s the evil deniers who banned them because they don’t want to hear the TRVTH.

Realclimate, yeah, there’s an honest site. And I am being facetious. Their response to the claim that the retreat of the ice/snow pack on Kilimanjaro was illuminating. They shrieked that claims that the loss of snow were not due to global warming were lies, lies I tell you! All based on one newspaper article, that’s it, there were no papers or truth to it. 5 minutes of googling and anyone could and did find at least 4 papers in peer reviewed journals that stated the real reasons, deforestation and land use changes leading to less precipitation, and the fact that the temps at the summit had actually cooled over time. Their response to this was that the papers didn’t actually say that it wasn’t global warming!!! Because they didn’t start off with “GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT WHAT’S CAUSING THE SNOW TO MELT” in large friendly letters, even though they proved it was another factor, wasn’t enough proof for them.

Sheese, you can’t make this stuff up. I wonder if they’ve ever updated their excuses on this or if they are still hawking the same lies.
sunsettommy says:

May 23, 2007 at 11:12 pm

The pro-AGW crowd generally act like a bunch of power mad barbarians, more in line with members of the Inquisition than logical and rational scientists sunsettommy. It’s no surprise they behaved in a way that caused them to be banned. I think some of them do it deliberately when their arguments are going nowhere, then they can rationalize it in their minds that they are really right and it’s the evil deniers who banned them because they don’t want to hear the TRVTH.

One was banned for arguing with the Administrator.

The other was banned for his obnoxious attitude.

Realclimate, yeah, there’s an honest site. And I am being facetious. Their response to the claim that the retreat of the ice/snow pack on Kilimanjaro was illuminating. They shrieked that claims that the loss of snow were not due to global warming were lies, lies I tell you! All based on one newspaper article, that’s it, there were no papers or truth to it. 5 minutes of googling and anyone could and did find at least 4 papers in peer reviewed journals that stated the real reasons, deforestation and land use changes leading to less precipitation, and the fact that the temps at the summit had actually cooled over time. Their response to this was that the papers didn’t actually say that it wasn’t global warming!!! Because they didn’t start off with “GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT WHAT’S CAUSING THE SNOW TO MELT” in large friendly letters, even though they proved it was another factor, wasn’t enough proof for them.

They have been picked apart by other forums.

There has been scientists who show up making comments at Realclimate tearing them apart.Niv Shaviv was one of them.It was a real treat!

Here is his website:

LINK

Comments are closed.