in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| ABC News | New Tone: Obama Camp Says Clyburn’s ‘Raping’ Comment Is Inappropriate |
0 |
| Biz Insider | Intriguing: EXCLUSIVE: Here’s The Inside Story Of What Happened On The FB IPO |
0 |
| Lee Stranahan | This: Friday, May 25th Is “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” |
0 |
| Gallup | 0 | |
| The Hill | Whoa: 4 in 10 Democrats desert Obama in Arkansas, Kentucky primaries |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
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. 
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Seems the tide is turning. Let’s hope it continues.
Meant to link this article
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.
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.
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.
severain…
show me science that doesn’t support human accelerated climate change. not oil company propoganda, science.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
LOVED that video CZ!! Absolutely priceless.
“Is passion supposed to replace common sense?”
One of the best lines I’ve ever heard.
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
One hopes, mistress, that this time around they’ll remember the UNICORNS!
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!
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.
This is great! Sign up quick before the rush hits! Carbon Debits for everyone!
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.
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…
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.
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.
“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?”
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…
Hey Settembrini, does this guy meet your “standards?”
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
Probably not, he’ll find something to complain about. Probably call him senile.
But to heck with Settembrini, THIS is important!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Settembrini,
Please name those people.
Jim Harrison,
The warming has slowed to a crawl since 1998.
This despite the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Why is that?
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.