I like your analogy.

The germ theory has been subjected to nearly two centuries of experimental testing -- and passed.

The AGW theory has been subjected to zero experiments. In fact, the closest we can come to an experiment is to observe the forecasted and actual temperatures since the IPCC endorsed forecasts were made. If we look at the last ten years, we see that the AGW models can't even get the sign right.

History of science books are filled with academic consensuses which were later falsified.

Your appeal to authority is amusing, but not enlightening.

And your data is???

Which timescale do you like? Up since the end of the Little Ice Age (even though IPCC and Mann tried to erase the LIA and the Medieval warm period). Since the 1930's -- down. Since the Norse inhabited Greenland -- Down. Since the 1970's (when our academia was worrying about the next ice age) -- up. And so on -- anybody can cherry pick little understood data.

The dissent is so weak outside America that New Zealand has abandoned its GHG program and the Australian parliament is considering the same thing.

And what is your hidden motivation. Mine is that I enjoy correcting people who spew drivel.

I once took a cruise, and found out one morning that all garbage was dumped overboard, all of it. Personally, I find that offensive and wrong. Now, we can say that putting the garbage on another garbage scow would harm the cruise ship's "economy", or we could say that the garbage dumps have not proven to be harmful to the ocean.
Proven or not, we are dumping tons of waste into the atmosphere, waste from oil that has been trapped in rocks for eons. Proven or not, we as a human race should be able to do better.

The science is settled not because the notorious liberals, Al Gore and Paul Krugman say it is. Instead it is settled because those who are in charge of that area of science say it is. Just as the germ theory of disease is settled and no longer debated is because scientist relevant to that "theory" view it as proven theory. Within the academy, climatologists have concluded global warming is primarily anthropogenic. Period. Al Gore is nothing but a popularizer of established science and his authority comes only from the science itself.

the fish can live happily until it poops out.

Add 7 billion more pooping goldfish....

As an environmental consultant that has over 30 years of experience I say "BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO". The more that people reveal the truth about this false politically motiviated global warming BS , the better. There isn't a single iota of scientific evidence that supports the global warming "crowd". Far greater evidence supports the sun spot activity, and the sun as the basic energy supply that drives the earth's atmospheric temperature variations. It's one thing to play the "foreign dependence upon energy card" it's quite another to hide behind smoke and mirros and "global warming BS". Furthermore, this "climate change" bill is no more than a blatent attempt to raise the prices on our current sources of energy to make "alternative" energy "sources" more cost competitive. The problem is that , other than nuclear, none of the "alternatives" are economically viable (if left to stand on their own), not reliable, nor have all their causes and effect impacts been fully disclosed. Furthermore, nuclear energy isn't even in the House's bill. Too bad we have politicians who don't know diddly about science making decisions int his area.

I agree that the issue of global warming is a political matter. But I never stopped to think about what the politicians' modus operandi is. Whom do actions taken to combat global warming benefit?

All I know from my own personal experience from living where I have been for the last 20 years is that these last few have been the coldest and wettest.
We rarely have any snow here but last year we had so much that very mature trees could not cope with the unusual weight of snow and now are leaning at an angle or had many branches snap off.
We have had to have the heating on in the house more too and considering we are taxed on heat and electricity here think this is a very unfair tax!
Global warming... I wish.. then we could save a lot of money!

hmmm. what motivation could YOU have to dismiss global warming? what happens when the time scale is changed to decades and centuries? is it an uptrend or a downtrend? wouldn't one look for short, medium, and long term trends? why pick 8 years?

why is the dissent among intellectuals so strong only in america?

don't know for certain who's right, but this article in this publication only makes me more suspicious of hidden motivation on your part. sorry.

Interestingly I had a revelation not long ago. I stayed at Crater Lake, NPS where they've studied the sediment in that deep lake that go back thousands of years. When I checked in at the lodge in 1995 there was a handout that told of the history of the climate around the lake. Well, it seems that about 3,000 years ago it go real warm. The sediment told of how all the vegetation changed, etc. That stayed that way for about 1,500 years! Then it shifted back to the environment we are familiar with. So, what up? Man didn't do that, did it?

What is also interesting when I went there again about 2 years ago -- guess, what? That brochure was gone. No where to be found. Hmm . . . Maybe a Freedom of Info Act request could uncover it.

It's always dangerous to shove facts into one's pet theory. Good work being willing to stand up and be heard (as opposed to being with the herd). SB

Now I am not a PHD, rather just another human inhabitant of Planet Earth. I do know from my own observations living in a SKI town for all my life that the annual snow is much less than it was when I was young. It wasn't uncommon to drive my parent's snow mobile down our city streets back then, or to get snow storms in the valley of well over 1 foot. Now we get mostly rain in the valley, snow in the mountains. We do get cycle years that bring pretty good amounts of snow to the valley but not like when I was young.
The obvious things to look at here are how many places on earth used to be islands, but now are under water. The question is; is this just the end of the last ice age with earth still warming or are we actually getting hotter because of increased CO2. We obviously aren't going to settle this anytime soon.

The overall question remains; what if it is the CO2 and we can actually do something about it yet don't? Ask yourself this, next time you take a drive in the mountains are the trees getting healthier looking, or more sickly looking?, Is acid rain real?, Are big cities thick with smog?
If the answers to these three questions isn't good then what difference does it make if the changes we are seeing worldwide are caused by CO2 or not, the root cause of my three questions is caused by burning fossil fuels. Eliminating, rather cutting back on the use of fossil fuels will help with pollution so it's still worth doing Right?

Red

Thank the Lord for someone who thinks. I remember back in the 60's there was a theory of "Continental Drift" which was laughed out of academia - until it was actually proved by the science. Now it's not even questioned that there are techtonic plates on which the various continents move. The scientific hypothesis / theory actually held up to the analysis.

This "Global Warming" theory will never be proved. Is anyone reading this old enough to remember in the late 60's / early 70's when everyone was afraid we were all going to freeze to death - from global cooling?

I learned in introductory Geology that the relative temperatures of the globe alternated from global ice ages to warmer periods - long before man even existed.

I am astounded that, according to this article, the temperatures of the globe are collected from the Hawaian VOLCANIC island of Mauna Loa. What a joke! One eruption of a volcano on the earth anywhere will seriously affect the global temperature - but what about next to a volcano?

A while ago the pseudo-scientists were claiming that the ozone layer was being destroyed at the poles (so the temperature there would be higher, which would cause the icecaps to melt, raising sea level). Real scientific measurement of snowfall proved that the icecaps were actually growing. The warmer temperature caused more snowfall, not less. Hmmmm. Never saw that on the front page did you? Duh! This is not science. Grab your wallet and RUN!

1.) It is not our job to disprove this junk science, it is 'their job' to prove it and their case is pathetic. Let the burden of proof lie with the dazed, confused and greedy.

2.) The biggest problem on Earth is one of resources. 6.5 Bln people now, 9.5 in 2020 (ok, according to experts but still.) and most of that growth will be in poor countries. If we're going to spend trillions, how about work on this problem instead. As George Carlin said "We don't even know how to care for one another yet, and we're going to Save The ..... Planet?!

3.) The Earth gets warmer and cooler over periods known as ice ages, and warm periods. Warm periods are times of plenty. We actually need times of plenty. More food, easier to grow and more fresh water. Who cares if Jimmy Buffet needs to find a new crib? Not me. And I don't believe the rise in Ocean nonsense anyway.

If you google it, it shouldn't be hard to find, but the article may be where your brochure is now). Back around 2002ish, a 2,500 square mile ice shelf broke (calved) off of the Ross Ice Shelf and the article mentioned that this happens all the time and the only concern was to the shipping lanes.

Last year I believe, a 25 mile ice cube calved off Antarctica, and the mimies were screaming about it and using it as 'evidence'.

This is a new tax revenue and profit source. Period.

But it's a beautiful scam. If we don't get warming, they fixed it. If we do, we acted too late.

The global warming measures benefit those industries that would be able to game the political and beauracratic system.

Carbon offset credits would enrich the energy companies. Enron was a big proponent. They would make untold billions in trading schemes to enable companies to stay in business. The carbon requirements also make it that much harder for upstart companies to rise up and compete with the big boys.

Phillip Morris was the biggest supporter of the recent tobacco legislation that further regulates the industry. Why? There will never be a new company that could afford to enter the tobacco industry.

Government created monopolies!

I am as pro-business anti-government as they come, but even I am sickened by this kind of activity by the larger firms. I will admit, they are using the hand they have been dealt. Hope and change!

Why does government want to do this? Money and power same as it ever was.

I am hopeful that we are finally getting to the point where everyone, left to right, can agree that the smaller the government the better.

why: Global Warming, guns, Amtrak, Health Care, unions, bail-outs, and MANY other complete unrelated topics (unrelated in a society of adults) are - in the US - ALL related to a group of people known as "those people".

You see, about 40 years ago there was this huge HUGE disagreement in the US about the status of whether a particular group of people ("those people") were actually human or not. The dominate racial group in the US was - by and large - of the opinion that they weren't. However, there was this small group of do-gooders that questioned the social norms and said "those people" were human. The battle raged for years (actually, it's still going on) but the vanguard of the battle managed to get laws passed that said "those people" needed to be treated as humans. These laws were VERY unpopular with the dominate racial group. The vanguard were subsequently labeled as "liberals". The dominate racial group in the US was pissed out of there minds at "those liberals" for upsetting the social order and having to treat "those people" as human. This caused a major political shift to take place in the US (which is still unresolved). A political party that championed states-rights and small-unobtrusive-government was re-born in order to right-the-wrongs inflicted on the dominate racial group by "those liberals" and especially by "THOSE PEOPLE". Over the years, ANYTHING related to "the big liberal government" was deemed BAD (unless it's the military) because "those liberals" who like "those people" support "big government".

Ok, so lets practice some silly American politics:

Health care: "Those liberals" want to take away YOUR FREEDOM in order to provide FREE health care to "THOSE WELFARE QUEENS" and you have to pay MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED TAX MONEY to support MORE of "THEM" !!!

Amtrak: "Those liberals" hate cars, because cars are FREEDOM, and "those liberals" want to take away YOUR FREEDOM by making you take PUBLIC transportation with "THOSE PEOPLE" !!!!!

Unions: "Those liberals" want to take away YOUR FREEDOM by making you join an organization that supports "those liberals", and you know who "those liberals" like don't chya? Yup, "those people" (YOU figure it out...)

Bail-outs: You know what caused all these problems? "Those people" taking out mortgages "they" couldn't afforded. You know WHY? "Those liberals" want you to live with "them". YOU figure it out.

Global Warming: Who thinks global warming is real? Scientists and "Those Europeans". You know what "those Europeans" are don't chya? SOCIALISTS!!! And SOCIALIST is just another word for LIBERAL!! And where do scientists work? Universities!!! And where do liberals work? Universities! Scientists are ALL liberals!!! SOCIALISTS LIBERALS EUROPEANS PANSY CARS THOSE PEOPLE. YOU FIGURE IT OUT!!!!!

So, you see. Global warming isn't JUST a warming trend. Oh no. It's "those liberals", they're gonna git ya.

I wonder how Anderson explains the
fact that the surface temperature of
Venus is above the melting point of
lead. The atmosphere of Venus is 98%
carbon dioxide. True, it is closer to
the sun than earth, but this is more
than offset by the perpetual cloud
cover which reflects most of the sun's
radiation.

It is encouraging to see people speaking up about global warming politics. There are far more serious issues facing mankind...type [Gore greenhouse gasbag giegengack] into google and enjoy the results. One of Robert Giegengack's quotes
"The Earth is fine. The Earth was fine before we got here, and it'll be fine long after we're gone."
I have a PhD in physical Chemistry, thermodynamics and have taught Environmental Science including modeling. Bottom line...in every sphere...truth is elusive. Skepticism is virtuous!

Well Nobel invented Dynamite but Gore beat Kman with his Global Warming invention.

Ice caps at the poles have only been around for the last 100 million years or so of the Earth's 8 Billion year or so existance.

Woolly Mammoths are still being found frozen in the Arctic Circle with their last meal of lush vegetation in their stomachs.

The question is: which is the greatest threat to life on Earth: Gore; Krugman; or the next Ice Age?

Clue: The next Ice Age will give us a couple of hundred years warning - the politicians don't give us any time.

Uh, maybe a point of clarification is in order, but what do you purport that first chart shows? That the earth is getting cooler? Maybe I'm misreading it, but it doesn't look like it's reporting absolute temps but "anomalies" (perhaps the difference between a temp extreme or "spike" and the average temp). If that's the case, isn't the graph merely showing that temp fluctuations from the average temp are getting smaller (i.e., swings from the average temp are getting less extreme)? Your conclusion may not be wrong, but I don't think that is the right chart/data to support it.

Sir,

This is article is shoddy, uninformed, and inaccurate. It uses data from the Science and Public Policy Institute, an Institute whose funding source is unknown and largely the work of Robert Ferguson (BA in history) and Chief Science officer Willie Soon (Ph.D. in physics) that has received some funding by the Western Fuels Association (a coal burning interest group) (Check out sourcewatch.org). A simple wikipedia search can provide you with detailed, referenced scientific data from multiple sources including a 110 year chart (not the 7 year chart shown) with a five year moving average. There is also commentary on the solar cycles (no association found between long term temperature and activity) and discussion on the eight computer models and the faults of each.

Scientists rarely find consensus about all the details of a theory. Skeptics often use this as a sign of weakness. It is actually a sign of accuracy. We don't know it all...We don't know for sure, but you might want to move off the tracks when you hear the sound of the loud noise coming out of the tunnel.

How inconvenient of you to be a scientist and not a politician.

Must be you are not in a position to be fired or have grant canceled for you "opinions".

We used to worry about the Bomb destroying human life - the politicians are doing it more effectively... at least non-human life has a better chance.

the controversy about do-it-yourself brain surgery. We ALL know, anybody can do it, but the "doctors" are all in lock-step agreement that you can't. See, it ALL makes sense now...

The atmosphere of Mars is 90 % CO2.

Average temperature = minus 1 F

Did you know the percent of CO2 in Earths's atmosphere is less than 4 tenths of one percent?

But again, not my job to disprove it but it is fun tossing out facts and figures.

Indeed, having too much knowledge is a curse! As Robert Giegengack has said...If carbon dioxide is the problem, we are already way too late. I learned this lesson about 40 years ago at the first Earth Day celebration in Newark, DE where the guest speaker stunned everyone witht the statement (I paraphrase greatly) that essentially said that mankind on its current course is screwed. We are just comsuming vital resources at an unsustainable rate. It doesn't look any better today.
We should pray for technological innovations that replace the utility of diminishing resources and not support any mechanisms that would take mankind's eyes off of the greater issues facing us.

"Instead it is settled because those who are in charge of that area of science say it is. "

This is not science. Science and the exploration of the natural universe is not something settled upon by experts on high and handed to us groveling masses. Science is questioning, and testing, and questioning yourself, again and again. The more true science you learn, ultimately the less you know.

The truth is that global warming does not even qualify as science because there is nothing to test or replicate. Its WAGs based on bureaucrats who have used data for their own purposes. It is religion disguised as science, meant to spread fear and keep the government busy.

You don't know what a cherry picker is, or what kind of bugs are now moving into the cherry trees. Nature will show us the changes as it already has begun to. Summers are later in some areas, hotter in others. Birds are changing migration patterns to follow the insects and other foods that are changing their patterns.
There is a total energy picture to look at, which means more winds, which means more movement. Weather (2 weeks) is not at all similar to global climate predictions. Read up on Chaos theory and use your P(iled) h(igher) and D(eeper) mental power to try and make the connections to scaling. Go on, try it, thinking doesn't do any good if you can't understand how the data is related.
The CO2 is just a trigger mechanism in the record. That's why the peak CO2 LAGS the temperature peaks. Enjoy the methane vapors coming out of the 'perm'afrosts.
Though I don't think government or academic scientists are any more competent than corporate ones, I do think they have different views of moral imperatives. Good luck figuring out which ones understand their own motivations.
I'll bet you just love that "Mythbusters" show, too. The "anti-MacGuyvers": Everything quits working when they show up. Must be all of that edyoocayshun.

"Scientists rarely find consensus about all the details of a theory. Skeptics often use this as a sign of weakness. It is actually a sign of accuracy. We don't know it all...We don't know for sure, but you might want to move off the tracks when you hear the sound of the loud noise coming out of the tunnel. "

And sometimes they don't want to admit they shouldn't have bothered with computer models in the first place because there wasn't nearly enough data, but the grant money was good.

Dan -

I've seen your commentary before and I've liked most of it. You are way too smart to be spouting the global warming religion. I wrote up a whole long series of questions and arguments about global warming that you never answered. If you want to dismiss me as a "non-believer", fine, but you might want to go back and take a hard look at those questions I presented to you.

Again, I agree with you that over consumption is a real issue. But global warming is not science and will never be science and it is flat out wrong to present it that way. It is completely possible to want and works towards a better and cleaner tomorrow without the "holier than thou" cloak of global warming. You may even find life to be a little bit more fun when the weight of the planet is not on your shoulders. It's up to you...

Any true environmentalist would commit suicide.
Humans are unable to moderate their own behavior as long as they are not given all of the important information.
The 'information' age is really one of propaganda and noise, paid for by advertising. We are less informed now than ever, and therefore, making worse decisions than ever before. The trend will continue until it doesn't.
What is the value of a person (a real one, not a corporate one)? This can easily be determined by how and where they choose to live (if they have a choice). Those without a choice probably have more value as people than those who do, since they are probably slaves. Those who have the choice of buying a home or renting a home are probably so valueless as part of the world that they don't even know how disposable they have become. The 'enlightened' modern human is merely a conduit for incorporated money and credit. Without these cogs in the system, who would transfer the cash from the ATM machines to the car wash machines?
We have learned to think as though we are all a limited liability corporation, with no risk for the actions we take. Sooner or later, the accumulated externalities always come back to bankrupt the 'company'. Too bad there won't be an uncontaminated site to move ourselves to.
A friend said today, "Religious education is an oxymoron: all education is religious."
I guess "PhD" stands for "Pointy hat Dude."

Yep, yep, yep! (As I've said before...)

No one has yet explained why an ice cap is a good thing. Still waiting as a matter of fact. :)

Indeed, satellite data shows cooling since 1998, and we are entering a solar minimum which may persist for decades or more. A number of British and Russian scientists are concerned about a new Ice Age, not warming. We learned yesterday that an internal EPA paper pointing out these obvious facts was suppressed by the Obama White House.
Result, the house passed an incredibly costly non-solution to a non-problem; mostly because of the ignorance, lies, and scare tactics of the likes of Krugman and the liberal democratic leaders.

About his safety or future. Those open minded progressives have made their decision and you are making trouble. Watch your back, my friend.

I am a weather forecaster, working along side other weather forecasters. There are times that the computer models completely blow it, even in the short term with tons of real-time data fed in which should give continuity. How do you think we feel about ultra long term models when we can be so humbled on our day 2 forecast?

A true scientist checks all possibilities, thinks of more and checks those, and even tries to disprove a theory. A true scientist will never say "the debate is over" on such a huge-scale issue where every variable and data point can never be known.

Although it can be tough to chew thru in in some places, Thomas Kuhn's (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions offers an interesting conceptual lens thru which to view scientific progress (such as our understanding of human influence on global climate).

Using examples drawn from historical scientific breakthrus, Kuhn argued that the scientific community sticks with an existing viewpoint, and shuns alternatives, for an excessive period of time. During these 'prescience/normal science' periods, plausible rival hypotheses and conflicting data tend to be dismissed by the experts.

Kind of like herd behavior and confirmation bias at work among the PhD folks.

The scientific paradigm only shifts when enough anomalies surface to decisively disprove the 'common wisdom.'

For those curious how the global warning/climate change movement might align with Kuhn's framework, the book may be worth a read.

matty

Reference

Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Well, not exactly proof. In fact I think man-made global warming is a possibility, but only a possibility. What I do have is a set of very particular skills. Skills that make me a scoundrels worst nightmare. Seriously, though, let me share a few things to look for in any argument, including global warming.

Casting aspersion on the moral qualities of your critics is a tactic reserved for liars, scoundrels and criminals. It has one and only one purpose; to restrict critical evaluation of your claims to prevent the any errors from being uncovered. Note that the supporters of global warming seem to have the market cornered on insults.

I'm sure Bernie Madoff would have questioned the moral character of anyone who thought his books needed auditing.

If your facts stand on their own merit, insults are not necessary.

(BTW, yes, I know this is a self-referential criticism. If you don't want to be associated with liars, scoundrels and criminals, don't use their tools.)

Speed is a tool of used car salesmen, telephone marketers, and, well, also scoundrels and criminals. Speed has the same purpose as the previous item. Speed doesn't give you enough time to perform a critical evaluation. Often by the time the evaluation is complete, you're dealing with a fait accompli. Why does something that moves as slowly as climate need to be fixed right this instant?

Can anybody say "stimulus bill"?

Making your opponents guilty by association with other disenfranchised groups is yet another tool of the scoundrel. Why do global warming skeptics get associated with Republicans and corporations? Answer: Because they're the current "bad guys." That doesn't make them wrong, just poorly intentioned.

Maybe we can take the Bernie Madoff lessons and morph them into Global Warming lessons?

I detest living in hot weather for extended periods of time. I still remember the euphoric feeling I had when I bought my first air-conditioned car. I like moderately cold weather so much that I moved to the left coast (from Utah) and settled in S.F. so that I could escape the super hot summers of my youth. No matter how long and cold each Utah winter was, the inevitability that a punishingly hot summer was just around the corner would place me in a deep depression by about mid-April.

I remember my final days as a Utahn, anxiously anticipating the cold summers that Mark Twain wrote about and the loose women with low moral standards that my Grandmother warned me about. Also, I looked forward to experiencing what beer that was brewed to have an alcohol content above 3.2% by volume tasted like.

The beer tastes great. I'm not gonna elaborate on my experience (or lack thereof) with loose women. But, while I haven't checked any historical temperature data, I've been sweating my butt off on many an occasion during the summer months, a lot more than I had anticipated. That's been going on since about 03. The first 2 years I was out here (01-02), it was cold and the tech crash seemed to have cut the population of the city down quite a bit.
It was my version of nirvana - cheap(er) rent, cold weather and small crowds! But none of that lasted very long.

Now, I yearn for a repeat of the past. Even if if the cheap(er) rent and the small crowds thing never comes back, I'd like it if the colder weather did.

So I'm digging this global cooling theory that people are mentioning in their posts. If it gets cold enough, maybe I could stomach moving to Arizona where I wouldn't have to deal with my allergy problems.

Your figures for the percentage of CO-2 and temperature of Mars is approximately
correct but there is very little green house effect because the atmosphere of
Mars is so tenuous --less than 0.1 percent of earth's atmosphere,

Man-made global warming, err, let's just try global warming , geez, the data doesn't fit, I got it, "Climate Change". Goddang, now there's a catch-all term if I ever heard one. No matter where she goes, it's a crisis ( don't waste it ), and we miserable humans are the cause.
A little marketing symantics, and 'ol gore-boy might be up for more awards.
- the original computer model goes back to a fellow named Michael Mann. The computer model itself has been dissected from other like computer professionals, and found to be very poorly constructed ( way too many untested, unproven assumptions ). Not so much garbage in, garbage out, which implies bad data, but much worse, the processing is totally faulty. So even 2+2 doesn't equal 4.
- but, as the article says, any theory, poorly constructed or not, can be tested with data observed, and then we see the fit. The fit, in this case, could not have been worse. The model output, which the scam is based upon, was a straight up hockey stick, i.e yearly increases, hence the hysteria. This wasn't just a prediction, gosh, we seem to be nudging 'ol Mothe Nature a wee bit, no, it said us humans, and our nasty CO2 increases, were markedly and swiftly changing the ENTIRE CLIMATE of a planet. Now just think about that for a second; this little infestation called human-kind had the power, even unwittingly, to CHANGE the goddang CLIMATE.
- And, of course, the planet taking its cue from the Sun ( who do these mortals think they be, really? ) had none of it and cooled. algore keeps his Oscar and prizes nonetheless.
- CO2? How did this ever, ever pass sanity check one is beyond me. I won't go into detail, but the mere fact the CO2, a wee trace gas, could quadruple into, well, a wee trace gas still, might have been daunting enough. But the physics I have read states that CO2 only absorbs IR radiation in three fairly narrow spectra. That means it collects reflected heat, eh, notta so good. So, notta much of it, and notta so good as a greenhouse villain.

Now, there are there out there that say, well, sure its a government BIG LIe,. but, we should be looking at non-carbon based energy sources, conserving, etc. Yes, we should, but these arguments stand on their own merit. They lose their own potency hiding under the BIG LIE.
I for one am fuggin sick of all the gov BIG LIES.

This is not at you personally, but to the whole crowd that feel this subject deserves some kind of priority status, real or not.

This is my roundabout way of saying there is so much information that vehemently disagrees with the whole notion of global warming that arguing facts and figures is absurd. I sometimes do it for fun as in this case. Global warming as caused by mankind, is nonsense.

Personally, I assume the Earth has been getting warmer since the last ice age ended some 15,000 or 18,000 years ago. Technically, having ice at the poles defines the current state as being in an ice age.

The bottom line here is that we're going to spend trillions and not affect positive change of any kind, let alone have an affect on the climate of the Earth. My first point as written was and is, let's put trillions of dollars to much better use that pretending we are saving the planet. And from what ? The planet has spent most of its' life without ice. Who are we to think that not only could we control the climate of the Earth, that we should. Who decides what the optimum temperature should be ? Based on What ? It's absurd if you think about it.

Taking this approach with climate control does absolutely impact the amount of resources available for people living Today. It is in direct conflict from a food, water, and financial standpoint. Tell a million people starving somewhere they must sacrifice so that some chunk of land can be kept above the water level somewhere else (if that's even true).

The whole concept is insane.

And as some of mentioned and I agree, I have no problem with trying to move to clean renewable energy. I saw this movie in the 1970's and it didn't work then either. You can't change the laws of physics simply because you think oil and coal are dirty or you don't like the people you get it from.

The concept and my observation of Capitalism itself tells me that if an effective alternate energy source was available to get 100 million people, just in the US, back and forth to work everyday, we'd be using it, and some group and the shareholders would be making trillions off of it. The oil companies are not killing new technology. They own the distribution network. In the end they don't care what they distribute. Solar cell companies would be selling for a million bucks a share. They are not because the technology does not exist in a form that makes operational or economical sense. Supplemental contributions for solar and wind, and tidal, and geothermal is the best we are going to get.

What do we accomplish if we cover the landscape with solar panels and windmills and supply energy to people at twice the price or more. Hybrids is about as far as we're going to go this time.

As far as I'm concerned, California proves that it is not economically feasible to create an idyllic environment on this rock floating through space.

Don't know much about science. But human beings don't often change their behaviour much before the two by four smacks their head.

Witness the reaction to $4.00 plus gasoline. Eight year old Honda Insights were selling for $15,000 on eBay.

People adapt to change in real time, not prospectively. That may turn out to be humanities fatal flaw.

If CO2 is the problem, let's just plant a lot more trees. That's middle school biology. not rocket science.

I probably didn't answer your questions before because I sometimes take a look at what I'm writing and feel I am talking too much. Send me a note with them and I'll answer them for you, (or make up answers like everyone else does).
To say it "isn't science" is misleading because in general, Science isn't science these days. It's all politics and religion, and mostly by incompetent players. The global warming people are inept and the anti-global-warming arguments are piecemeal. To find competent discourse about climate change and the various models, one must look outside the U.S. and its corporate-think systems (both for and against). Even though the best computer models are actually from here, Americans are so deep in our own quagmire of the Consumption Age that we cannot allow the thought of any of its supports to crack our fantasy of Benevolent Global Empire.
We used to fear global cooling. We also used to fear the Bomb. We fear terrorists. We cannot discuss our real fear, which is that humans are irrelevant to the religions we create as our guides. In the end, we buy into our belief systems so deeply that we become what we believe, rather than questioning who we are and how we determine reality. I don't believe either side of the arguments ABOUT global warming. I do believe that it is more probable that the data presented properly by scientists is more likely to be useful than the data presented by politicians and AM radio hosts. I also believe that data from scientists with public funding is more likely to be presented with traceability to their raw data than data presented by Exxon/Mobil or Shell (having worked in data collection and reduction for both government and industry, I know how much easier it is to bury data in private firms).
Of course everyone has an agenda, but that agenda is supposed to be to protect the public, not to raise grant money. Generations of scientists, however, have learned that sensationalizing any story gets them either a lot of funding or busted. Sensationalizing a story doesn't make it untrue, but it doesn't help get the truth and it doesn't help people make proper decisions for themselves. I like to sensationalize things, but I'm nobody with no degrees, so why should anyone listen to me?

(listen to Rush, "Grace Under Pressure", "Distant Early Warning")
c1983

An ill wind comes arising
Across the cities of the plain
There's no swimming in the heavy water-
No singing in the acid rain
Red alert
Red alert

It's so hard to stay together
Passing through revolving doors
We need someone to talk to
And someone to sweep the floors-
Incomplete
Incomplete

The world weighs on my shoulders
But what am I to do?
You sometimes drive me crazy-
But I worry about you

I know it makes no difference
To what you're going through
But I see the tip of the iceberg-
And I worry about you...

Bob Farmerie:

I would give anything to believe you are right but unfortunately
facts are facts. Global warming is a fact and is caused by human
activities despite all the propaganda to the contrary.

An ice cap stabilizes the temperature of the northern latitudes, providing cooling effects in summer, and an actual warming effect in winter when it freezes and insulates the water underneath from winds. It isn't necessarily a 'good' thing, but it is the thing we've had for thousands of years and it is what our food crops are accustomed to for the time being. The difference in temperature between the equator (humidity also) and the poles helps circulate the atmosphere 'vertically' and exchange moisture much as the prevailing winds do across continents and oceans horizontally.
An ice cap also reflects much of the summer sun (until the ice melts) which reduces the extremes between summer and winter seasons.
Another issue that is often misquoted is that people think that CO2 is simply reflecting infrared light from the sun that bounces off things. The actual effect is that all of the frequencies from the sun are first absorbed by things on the surface (depending on colors, etc, unless reflected from ice), and they get warmed up. When they warm up, that energy is mostly emitted as infrared. For example, green things are green because they absorb everything but green light. Plants are very efficient at doing this to make food. If they can't dump the excess heat, they get hot very quickly. Some plants simply grow faster, but others change their behavior according to the number of degree days (degrees times days). Warming might make them grow faster (sounds good) but it also screws up the time when they flower. If our food crops are dependent upon bees for pollination, and they flower while the beekeepers still have the bees on a semi-truck, then the plants don't get pollinated (as well). We can adjust to some extent for that, but it takes resources which, in a failing infrastructure dependent upon CHEAP petroleum ( the oil doesn't have to run out to be a problem), are harder and harder to come by.
Regardless of man-made warming or natural warming, we shouldn't be wasting time pointing fingers at the capitalists (as much fun as I find that to be). Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but we have huge complex changes going on right now that need to be addressed from the bottom and the top, and "same-ole, same-ole" politics and business just aren't going to keep up with the chord changes.

Free health care NOW! (we fight for the release of political prisoners, don't we?)

Fred, one of the things that people are so afraid of is finding out that they already knew the truth and did nothing about it.

Most would rather just complain and the internet is much better at enabling talk than action. In fact, I need to turn off this toy and get back to hauling hay...

Let's start with a quote from your article: "The argument is that more infrared radiation released by the Earth is captured given the higher concentration of CO2 in the air, thereby warming the planet." That's wrong. Sunlight, reflected from earth's surface, does not escape the atmosphere anymore but gets reflected back onto the planets surface, where it bounces up again and so forth... All the while releasing little amounts of energy into our atmosphere.
"Do you view weather forecast projections for 2 weeks from today with the same certainty that you do a computer model that purports to predict the weather 100 years from now?" Apples and Oranges: One method is trying to predict the exact conditions in a specific spot on the planet while the other describes a global trend. If I tell you what price a specific stock will be in two weeks you will call me crazy, but I doubt you would argue with "The S&P will be higher in 100 years than it is today."
Yes, models are not perfect and this extremely complicated system "Earth" is very hard to get a handle on.
But I have a question for you I'd really like to get answered: Even if the graet majority of leading scientists is wrong, and there is no man-made global warming, where is the harm in better insulating our houses and trying to find more ecological sound ways to operate our businesses? It seems like a win-win!

There is not enough landmass on the planet to plant sufficient trees... the amounts of CO2 are gigantic!

Fred,

There is actually no propaganda to the contrary. Propaganda by nature is an overwhelming flow of information by those perceived to be the information givers (the media and government in this case) and those suckers are 100% in love with the idea of the global climate thingamabob. So much so that they actually suppress information to the contrary. You don't read dissenting opinion because the media won't pay for and publish it. They won't even publish it for free.

To the global climate thingamabob supporters... coupla things

1.) Let's revisit this in about 5 and again in 10 years shall we?
2.) What is it exactly that is wrong with the planet getting warmer ? Be specific. And does it outweigh the cost of human suffering in the meantime.?

Human suffering you ask? Yes, as energy gets more expensive, Everything and I mean everything gets more expensive because everything in life, mainly food and clean water in this case requires energy in its manufacture and/or distribution. Small increases in those costs leave many people out in the cold. Millions upon millions of people.

Dude. You realize that the % of CO2 is less than 4 tenths of one percent do you not.

Check Wikipedia. Search on "Atmosphere of the Earth"

PS - And what happens when some volcano erupts, spewing enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cancel out a thousand years of human CO2 reduction efforts ?

Or will there not be any more large volcanoes ?

Oh, I do realize fully how "little" CO2 there is in the atmosphere in absolute terms, but if you ever try Infrared Spectroscopy on a CO2 sample you will see how great the effect of "little" is. And 0.4% is already twice what it was, so you should instead view it as a 100% increase.
And yes, volcano eruption do contribute to CO2 and other molecules in our atmosphere, but you have to consider the scale of things: If Yellowstone were to erupt for example (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html), there would probably be an effect on our climate.
But I keep asking the question I asked before: Even if the great majority of leading scientists is wrong, and there is no man-made global warming, where is the harm in better insulating our houses and trying to find more ecologically sound ways to operate our businesses? It reduces dependence on foreign oil, reduces the trade deficit and New technologies usually mean new jobs. It just seems like a win-win!

We don't need more science. We need more common sense.

Instead of pointy-headed arguments about why global warming (I far prefer the term climate change...) is a myth, those of us who don't live in concrete don't need to look further than our backyards.

The glaciers are vanishing in the Rocky Mountains here. To the seemingly flippant comment by the person who never understood the importance of glaciers, well, to us that is our water supply. Farmers understand the importance of glacier run-off. Wildlife understands it - but then again, I imagine that Oreos signify more to you than wildlife as well.

The Western slope is also dependent on glacier run-off as a major source of water. Various interest groups spend thousands and thousands of dollar arguing over these water rights.

My friends in Norway are reporting similar issues and experiences...

I suppose that you've never quite understood the importance of water. Or air. Who needs it, as long as you have Tempur-pedic...

The work of James Balog may be incidental and anecdotal, to an extent, but it only affirms what most mountain people have been observing first-hand for years.

Measure-bate all you like. It doesn't alter reality.

Having spent 2 day with a forensic dirt guy (geologist) recently he went on and on about how 1% of the warming is driven by us...the balance...99% is earth giving all of us the big F-You...its heating up no matter what.

Look at the surrounding planets in our solar system and ask yourself...just how the F are they heating up also?

I think that is a good point...in the mean time...turn up the good old AC a notch a chill out.

Amy M, Actually, you are wrong. An "academic" is a member of "the Acadamy" which is subdivided into thousands of sub-categories. Truth in these subcategories is determined though the publishing of many more thousands of articles and monographs, all of which can only be published through a peer review process. You can't get published unless your peers approve of what you submit. That's how it works. It's tough but that is how scientific knowledge comes about. It is tough work.

On the other hand, if you are funded by some astroturf organization, anybody can publish anything as long as it meets the PR purposes of the organization. A few bucks liberally spread about and suddenly, you have "scientific" debate.

The truth? Americans can't handle the truth!

Just bow down to Krugman, and adopt his religious zeal for this issue with Nobel Prize inspired faith.

Pat - That's the what is so appealing about global warming. Every real advance of science has taken us in some form from the center of the universe to some other much more humble place. Global warming appeals because somehow the humans have gained back the powers of a deity over the planet.

Heh. To paraphrase a movie badly:

"I give you my word as a scientist."

"No good, I've known too many scientists."

I have a BA in Geology. I was fortune enough to do 2 undergraduate internships that were meant to prep me for advanced degrees. I had a chance to watch and work with working geologists during their summer months when grants came due.

Grants, particularly government grants, are not given out on some esoteric "this would be great for the world to find out about" basis. You have to be researching something that the government and giver is interested in and under their time frame. I'm guessing that some high ranking gov. official several years ago probably decided global warming was the way to go and viola - most of the money available for environmental work centers around global warming.

And to be frank, peer review is not a catch all way to get rid of bad science. Committees are made of scientist busy with their own research. Those attracted to committees, just like in real life, tend to not necessarily be the best scientist. (After all, if you were, would bother needing the ego boost of reading/reviewing other people's work?) Papers on subjects that are mostly "known" to be true are rarely scrutinized the way they should be. Any "risky" paper may be either a)rejected out of hand or b)actually subject to a review by someone actively looking for a reason to dismiss it. Peer review, far from vetting bad science, actually encourages status quo thinking.

IMO scientists are very human, influenced by the whims of popular belief, politics, and what it takes to make a living. Actually, I don't blame them for being human. On the other hand, it's been a long time that being part of an academy or having a PhD has been enough for me to grant automatic trust, Traditionally, some of the better science and debate has happened outside of the "system" (it took Einstein quite a while to get published, if I recall) and the Internet has only accelerated the trend.

That's the tricky thing about science. Data gathering is easy but interpretation is difficult.

How about this view of the polar ice caps and glaciers:

Most places on the planet require rain into grow plants and sustain crops. Rain is created from available liquid water on the planet. Clouds are not created from ice, but liquid water evaporating into the atmosphere. Polar ice caps lock up water that might otherwise be part of the water cycle, preventing life giving rain.

In addition, the existence of polar ice caps create the conditions for ice ages, where much larger percentages of the planet are covered in ice. These events are highly disruptive to life, both by burying otherwise productive regions and by cooling down the immediate vinicity so that it no longer supports life (aka the Arctic, and permafrost). The removal of the polar ice caps may in fact encourage life on most of the planet rather than in the tropics.

So far from encouraging life and balance on the Earth, polar ice caps are responsible for much destruction and disruption on the planet and the life continues to thrive in spite of their existence, not because of it.


The fact is that no knows for sure how the Earth works. We can't always get tomorrow's weather right, let alone really understand the impact of literally hundreds of thousands of variables on a system as large and complex as the earth. Is the Earth changing? Sure. But then the Earth has been changing since Day 1.

(PS - If you are interested in some cleverly presented info on a very recent ice age, I recommend watching the series Connections (Disk 3, I believe), which is available on DVD. James Burke theorizes on the shifts caused by a cooling event all of 700 years ago and it's impact on Britain. Food supplies dwindled and the natives were forced into some very clever changes that might have triggered parts of our modern way of life. His interpretation of events makes you rethink the inherit "goodness" of glaciers.)

"If Yellowstone were to erupt for example (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/su pervolcano/under/under.html), there would probably be an effect on our climate. "

Probably? If Yellowstone were to erupt, I doubt anyplace on the planet is safe. I saw ash fall in Colorado several feet thick. It's freaky. ;)

"Even if the great majority of leading scientists is wrong, and there is no man-made global warming, where is the harm in better insulating our houses and trying to find more ecologically sound ways to operate our businesses? It reduces dependence on foreign oil, reduces the trade deficit and New technologies usually mean new jobs. It just seems like a win-win!"

Exactly. You don't need global warming to be an environmentalist. Talk about real benefits like saving money, disconnecting ourselves from the Middle East, giving a better planet to the kids and ourselves. Drop the "scientist have predicted the end of the earth" stuff (which people understand instinctively to be false, and with good reason) and give people the real reasons to conserve and save.

You are one of the "useful Idiots" the government counts on, if you believe it's OK to go along with the BIG LIE, because there could be drag-along benefits, you haven't been paying much attention to the government lately. Follow the money on cap and trade. Actually, watch the specific money you and your loved ones have extracted from your wallets, in the middle of a depression, and see it float into the scammers hands.
Just look at a pie chart of how electricity is produced in this country, and tell me how if enacted this law won't raise your rates, raise production costs of things you buy, etc.
Now tell me why any American business is going to compete with countries that don't levy this TAX? Which countries are those? ALL OF THEM, especially the soon to be desperate exporting countries like China, Japan, etc. American companies will have two options, move off-shore or die. Easy choice.
All this is obvious: I always worry about the law of unintended consequences associated with every idiotic liberal program enacted, the bad stuff we don't see coming.
You know, back in the 70's when the gov gave unwed mothers even more welfare for having more kids; the wonderful housing projects, on and on.

"Now, there are there out there that say, well, sure its a government BIG LIe,. but, we should be looking at non-carbon based energy sources, conserving, etc. Yes, we should, but these arguments stand on their own merit. They lose their own potency hiding under the BIG LIE.
I for one am fuggin sick of all the gov BIG LIES. "

You SAID IT, brother!

But it isn't just a government Big Lie. Much of it is when we are lying to ourselves.

As Garrison Keillor said, "We read the bible to try and understand what God wants us to do, only to find out we already know and wish we didn't."

This is a link to the latest paper from Australia's CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific Investigation and Research Organisation) : http://www.csiro.au/news/ps2q9.html

Being a scientific paper the content is a bit dry, but this is a relevant excerpt:

Fast facts
* CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research scientist, Dr Penny Whetton, contributed to the report as a Lead Author on the chapter dealing with regional climate projections
* The report states that atmospheric concentrations of the main greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane far exceed concentrations over the previous 650,000 years, primarily due to combustion of fossil fuels, agriculture and land-use changes
* The IPCC represents the consensus view of about 2500 climate scientists from around the world. More than 100 Australian experts have been involved in the IPCC process since 2001

When I have 2500 climate scientists telling me that the way we are using the planet is causing long term problems I'm just a bit inclined to listen up.

Or gee, how the government gave farmers money for not growing too many pigs....
Meanwhile, they bought out the small farmers and subsidized the big ones. Economy of scale, right?

It only works with cheap oil.

We get the government we deserve. What is really scaring people into such long arguments is not government intervention, nor is it carbon emissions, nor is it climate change itself. What is scaring people is that the more they look at any of these issues, the more they realize that we have a consumption problem in a time when every person in America holds their breath if "consumer confidence" changes.
The BIG lie is that human beings make "decisions" based on logic and reason when we do stuff, and we make up reasons for doing stuff: in that order. We have met the enemy, and it is a fiend buried in our lizard brains that tells us "we have to eat, so anything goes."

Why does anyone still consider the government and business two separate entities?

I would say LOL, but it's just too sad, isn't it? As one of "THOSE LIBERALS" said, "The Democrats have moved to the right and the Right has moved into a mental hospital." -Bill Maher, who was FIRED for being a LIBERAL on "That LIBERAL MEDIA".

Personally, I'm so far right, I'm left, and I think we should give everyone a gun and tell them to shoot whoever p...es them off. Everyone would either be a better neighbor or a better shot. Both are useful skills.
The Liberals don't like my idea because they think humans are too nice for that, and the Republicans don't like it because they know someone is ALWAYS a better shot and they'd have to learn to be better neighbors.

There's good info here but the message is clouded by the rhetoric. Is the author questioning the science or is he just out to debunk Krugman. Anyone with a half sense of reality knows that nothing is 100% and that counter-arguments can be found for almost anything.

To provide scientific evidence against global warming but providing rhetorical criticism of evidence for global warming makes this article no better than... well Krugman's.

Re: Personally, I'm so far right, I'm left, and I think we should give everyone a gun and tell them to shoot whoever p...es them off.

How odd, I feel the same. I've transitioned from being a REAL American Republican - as a result of growing up in Chicago and the affect that "those people" had on my (and everyone's) life - then transitioning to a Democrat after moving to Florida and realizing that when everybody is a psychotic propaganda spewing Republican there's gotta be something seriously wrong with being one - to then being Libertarian that votes Green (!) because I wouldn't want to live in a world that was run by people that worship "the successful" because they were born as type-A's (eg banksters). So, like George Carlin, I think your gun solution is all that's left (plus it's the ONLY solution to global warming).

Hi Pat,

let me see if I understand your post right: You accept the fact that man-made global warming is a reality, but you worry about the costs to this nation and politicians messing up?
Ok, to set one thing straight: I am not saying Washington will get it right, in fact I highly doubt it. But the way politicians are elected (The need for campaign money) makes them special interest peddlers without any regard for the consequences. And that goes for both parties.
Now as far as the cost goes: Many other countries already have a CO2 trading program (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BusinessofGreen/idUSTRE51O4NV20090225) (and everyone's insured, too) but they are in reasonably good shape. By the way, why do I always get 6 plastic bags when I buy groceries in the US, but zero when I do the same thing in say, Germany?
I will gladly pay a little extra if it means the worst case scenarios can be avoided that way. Once you wrap your head around the severity of the problem and the potential cost of not acting now, you will see that something needs to be done, and it needed to be done yesterday. After all, you don't stop going to Dialysis because it is a recession, because you know you would die.
I for one want my children to have a life, and not have to struggle to survive.

At Amy:

LOL, you are absolutely right about Yellowstone, but I thought I'd phrase it very carefully before someone gets all upset with me for being "too certain" about future events ;)

"To provide scientific evidence against global warming but providing rhetorical criticism of evidence for global warming makes this article no better than... well Krugman's."

There's no need to provide scientific evidence against global warming because it's not scientific nor based in scientific methods. Really.

Science, when done correctly is both independently testable and repeatable. For instance, I can both replicate and verify any number of physics experiments up until the advent of nuclear physics. So can anyone else on the planet.

The predictions of global warming are based entirely on unproven computer models and based on data from inferred climate information over a tiny fraction of the Earth's 4 bn year history (<1%). There is no way for anyone on the planet to replicate independently their results, nor can we test past performance of such models over even a reasonable time scale.

The truth is, If we can't predict weather 2 weeks out, or whether it will be a cold or warm next winter or the actual number of hurricanes in next year's hurricane season, or any number of arguably simpler problems, than we cannot predict global temperature change. End of statement. Scientist were irresponsible to have even made *any* predictions at all. However, just like you and me, they enjoyed getting paid and the government was paying them to make predictions (and preferably bad because they already knew the answer).

widely known as an 'economist'', Krugman is little more than a political hack. an apologist for statism - anything that involves more regulation and higher taxes will meet with his approval, no matter if it's justified or not. the man is an enemy of both science and liberty in my opinion, and i deeply detest him.

there was once a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. later, there was a scientific consensus that the universe obeyed Newtonian mechanics. it remained unquestioned for a long, long time, until a single man came up with the theory of relativity, and the 'scientific consensus' was thrown overboard.
science does not progress through consensus, that much is certain.
in 1975, there was a broad scientific consensus that the earth was immersed in a 'dangerous process of global cooling' (funny enough, the earth had indeed been cooling since the 1940's, in spite of the biggest global industrilization phase in all of history taking place concurrently). what did this this consensus demand? 'something MUST BE DONE RIGHT AWAY, that's what. otherwise, there would soon be famines due to the cooling world destroying harvests. among the proposals: covering the North and South pole ice sheets with ash, so sunlight wouldn't be reflected anymore.

'40 years ago'....and 40 years later, we still seem to be doing just fine with those resources. people tend to forget that resources we do NOT use do not benefit anyone. they also forget that the planet is very large, and harbors far more resources than the doom-sayers from Malthus onward have predicted.
conservation of resources is by the way a natural side effect of the free market's tendency to become more productive. it does not require intervention by the state.

"But I keep asking the question I asked before: Even if the great majority of leading scientists is wrong, and there is no man-made global warming, where is the harm in better insulating our houses and trying to find more ecologically sound ways to operate our businesses? It reduces dependence on foreign oil, reduces the trade deficit and New technologies usually mean new jobs. It just seems like a win-win!"

I have no problem with that as long as it doesn't drastically increase the cost of food and other necessary resources that millions of children (to mention a few) rely on. Do you understand what I'm saying? Because of the wild goose chase of Ethanol for example, corn went from 2 to 6 $ a bushel. That means that poor countries buying corn from us only got 1/3rd of their normal supply - or they had to do without something else.

And not to insult your intelligence, but the cost of all other farmed produce went up as well. If farmers could grow and sell corn for 6 a B, why grow soybeans for net lower gross output?

Solar, Wind, Geothermal and Nuclear will play a role in our immediate and longer term future, but it will not replace coal, and oil. It cannot. The economics don't permit it.

"Measure-bate all you like. It doesn't alter reality."

My point exactly. Embrace the change. Deal with the water supply problem. Almost? Every civilization had to deal with disruption of the water supply. The Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Romans, the Inhabitants of Los Angeles !

Dealing with your water supply problem through engineering that traces back thousands of years will be much easier than trying to freeze the climate of the Earth to a place in time.

What do you think?

It's a pleasure to read intelligence such as yours. And this isn't a pass, I'm an old married guy.
Enjoy.

Dr. Anderson, thanks for trying to poke a bit of common sense into the hysterical bubble forming around the Global Warming religionistas. I hope you plan further articles on the topic here at MV, as this one certainly "got on base."

The arguments highlighting the divergence between IPCC predicted v. observed temperatures are made even more compelling by broadening the scope to address the IPCC model as a whole. Since your article made no mention of the broader, deeper breakdowns of the IPCC model, I write to call your attention to two powerful arguments (perhaps they are doubles or triples). Since your article here was published today over at ICECAP, you may already be familiar with them.

The first is an expose of the fraudulent nature of IPCC claims and falsified data regarding sea level rises in an entertaining interview with Dr. Nil-Axel Morner, Professor and Chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Advisor and Peer Reviewer for the IPCC, President (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. It can be found at http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ ClimateChangeDocuments/ NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

The second very forcefully debunks both the model's scale of predictions of global temperature increases and its claim that carbon emissions are responsible. In short, IPCC climate models are fatally flawed. Dr. David Evans (PhD, Electrical Engineering, Stanford, and a former GW religionista in the Australian Greenhouse Office) presents excellent graphs and 3D (P/T/alt) histograms that clearly demonstrate 1) that the recovery of temperatures since the "little ice age" of the 1700s remains net constant and 2) that the observed signature in atmosphere histograms so greatly diverges from IPCC greenhouse gas models that carbon emissions cannot be related to recent temperature changes. An abbreviated essay is archived at ICECAP, and the full report is at http://sciencespeak.com/ MissingSignature.pdf

Cheers, and good luck with the loonies,
Thomas G. LaCour
PhD, Chemistry


presented by Drs. David Evans and

To your point. Mankind has been standing on soapboxes for centuries proclaiming 'I have the Answer" only to be proven wrong time after time after time. People don't realize the amount of 'science' that has been tossed into the round file.

The amount of science Theory that still survives today is smaller than minuscule to the overall total. That which still exists is largely categorized as theory and not fact.

Well, I've heard many predictions and I've never heard one prediction made more than a couple years out that even came close.
- Ozone hole - It's closed up.
- We'll be out of oil by the year 2000 made in 1970 - There are more known barrels of oil in the ground now than at any other time.

I haven't memorized them all and what good would it be if I did. How about someone supporting this nonsense cite a prediction made more than 5 years in advance that actually came true. Anyone? And not some idiotic ambiguously translated Nostradamus thing.

I am very glad we agree!
Ethanol from corn (and sugar cane for that matter) is by far the most idiotic thing policymakers could encourage! The waste of water to produce the ethanol is immense and it should just be prohibited. And then there is the priceincrease for everybody hitting poorer nations hardest, that was quite bad as well. And the worst part is, that even though this president seems smart, he will continue with the misguided concept of ethanol from corn.
We have way to many people on this planet to be turning valuable food into fuel. But there goes the political bandwagon. I really liked this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MeIgaRfyD4 but sadly, I have not yet found a way to invest in it. Although the guys at MATK could adapt their technology easily to produce in this manner.This project by the Europeans, if they get it off the ground, seems also good: http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE55N2WV20090624.
In the short term there is no way off oil and coal, but in the long term it has to happen. Since this planet is finite, so are its resources. A from the scientist's perspective: I find it annoying that future generation will not be able to perform carbon dating on the remnants of our civilizations: If you carbon-date the grass growing next to a major highway right now it usually gives you an age of about 20,000 years... Spooky, isn't it?
It has been a pleasure to find common ground,
Jesko

Agreed and thank you.

Firstly, conflating time periods such as daily weather forecasts and long-term trends is misleading.

Second, most climate scientists would not disagree that there has been a cooler period since 1998. They would however look at this in the context of other climate science theories. Especially regarding heating and warming in the oceans that affect global temperatures. They would argue that this is the cause for the comparably (to 1998, though not to any other time period in history) cooler climate. I would agree we need to wait and see how heating will progress over time to see if these theories are correct. Only time will tell.

However, regarding policy - we should still act as if global warming was a foregone conclusion. This is a simple risk assessment. If global warming science is wrong, then we are out a significant amount of money adapting - though one could make an argument that expensive retooling of infrastructure will in fact stimulate economic growth, but who knows on that. So, if the science is wrong, we potentially lose a whole lot of money. That's pretty bad. But! What is the risk if the science is right and nothing is done? Total ecological disaster involving the potential extinction of the human race, along with many other species. Now which is more risky? Losing a bunch of cash or potential extinction? Granted the optimal outcome would be science wrong, no money spent. But given the potential risks, is it worth it?

People all over the world know the abercrombie and fitch,but not everyone really knows how fashion the abercrombie is,hollister is the Legend maker. Everybody wears the hollister clothing would be the abercrombie mensand the abercrombie womens, if you want know you can search the Ruehl No.925 or abercrombie outlet in the www.google.com .

The reason that ethanol was pushed from the government, who were paid off by the oil companies, was to stop any and all progress into making a viable electric car. If it wasn't for this wonderful ethanol idea, electric cars would have been sold by GM to the public for a number of years by now.