Five shots against global warming denialism

By Phil Plait | January 25, 2012 12:41 pm

It’s a truism that whenever I write about the solid fact that the Earth is warming up, that post will get comments that make it clear that denialists — and please read that link before commenting on my use of the word — are like religious zealots, writing the same tired long-debunked arguments that are usually debunked in the very post they’re commenting on.

Still, we press on. The noise machine only wins if they can outshout reality, so it’s important to keep writing about it. Here are five news items about climate change that might help mitigate the nonsense.

1) Last week, I posted the results from studies showing 2011 was the 9th hottest year on record. Forbes online has more information on this. They take a different tack on it, but get the same results I do: the Earth is warming up, and humans are why.

2) Some very welcome news: the National Center for Science Education — who for years have been at the forefront of battling creationists getting their "curriculum" into schools — is adding climate change to their syllabus. At that link they have well-written descriptions of the problem, how to teach about climate change, and how take action against denialism.

You can watch NCSE’s Executive Director, the wonderful Genie Scott (full disclosure: she’s a friend of mine) talk about climate change, and why it’s so important that we tackle this issue politically.

3) One tactic of denialists like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and several Congressmen is to use witch hunts against climate scientists. By filing court orders to get access to emails, for example, they endlessly hound scientists. This serves their purposes quite well: it sets up a chilling effect, for one, making a hostile environment for the scientist; and it sets up doubt in the public’s mind despite there being zero real evidence for it. Michael Mann has suffered this sort of thing many times, despite being cleared of all wrongdoing over and over again.

Now the tables are turned. Scientists have filed a Freedom of Information request to find out who is bankrolling the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a denialist "think tank" with "shadowy funders". In the US, there are groups like this aplenty, and in many cases their funding can be traced to oil companies, the Koch brothers, and so on.

The more people see who actually funds these denialist groups, the better. Once it became public that it was the tobacco industry pumping so many lies into the media about cigarettes the tide turned, and these global warming denialist groups are literally using the same tactics. And hey, the Heartland Institute, which bills itself as libertarian, also has ties to tobacco at the same time it funds New Zealand climate denial groups, too.

4) Apropos of that, some good news in the fight: the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund — which helps raise money for beleagured scientists under attack by denialists — has a new home: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). PEER will provide sponsorship and logistical support for the fund. Money raised goes to help defray the costs of legal fees for scientists who are the subjects of the above-mentioned witch hunts. The CSLDF also helps educate scientists about their rights, recruits lawyers to help out, and serves as an information database related to legal actions against scientists.

Wanna help? Donate to the fund here.

5) … and apropos of that, it’s nice to see scientists fighting back, too.


Related posts:

2011: The 9th hottest year on record
Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.
New independent climate study confirms global warming is real
Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured

Comments (130)

  1. Keep those shots coming. What we need is a good vaccine against the denialist antics. ;)

  2. Deny This:
    From Obama’s 2012 StateoftheUnionAddress; ONLY one mention of climate change (crisis):
    “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.” –This is a crisis?
    And NO mention of climate change in his 2011 StateoftheUnionAddress either.
    Occupywallstreet’s list of demands does not include climate change because of the bank funded CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS and governments taxing the air we breathe. Climate change money would be better spent on real people.
    Yes pollution is real but CO2 fears were not. Now we can preserve, protect and respect the planet instead of holding the CO2 gun to our children’s heads.

  3. timmy

    I know other coutries struggle with anti-vax groups, but are they as dumb as the US when it comes to evolution and climate change?

  4. Lars

    The dumbness of organized denial is universal. Also, google “crank magnetism”.

  5. Derek

    Lets get this out of the way:

    1) No, other planets are not also warming up.
    2) No, the sun’s 11 year solar cycle is not to blame.
    3) No, the warming trend has not stalled, reversed, or changed.
    4) No, there is no debate on whether humans are the cause. (At least, not in scientific circles.)
    5) No, the warming is not a natural cause of “coming out of an ice age.”
    6) No, the warming is not comparable to any previous natural warming. (It is much, much faster.)
    7) No, the data set that scientists use isn’t limited to 100 (or 10, or 50, or whatever) years. And, going back farther and farther does NOT make the picture look any rosier.

    97.5% of climate experts agree that the planet is warming, and that humans are the cause.

    Every major scientific group of every industrialized nation agrees that the planet is warming, and that humans are the cause.

    Denialists, whatever your personal pet theory is, it is NOT some obvious fact that has been overlooked by all of acadamia for the past hundred years. Before posting it here, do a little honest research on your complaint. If you’re having difficulty finding reliable scientific sources, I encourage you to check the scientific papers linked at this site:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com

  6. Cameron

    Being a NZer, I checked out the link in #3 and went to their website where it had a list of their founders, most of which had pretty good credentials (some are even staff at the earth science faculty at my university where I’ve taken several courses). I then had a quick browse around wondering how these seemingly credible scientists came to their conclusions; I stopped when I saw an article praising Lord Monckton’s visit here.

    No credible scientist would actually believe the crap Monckton spews out.

  7. Caleb Jones

    Nice post!

    For me I think a lot debate problems stem from the desired goal. I personally feel myopically focusing on CO2 misses the larger goal: We need to realise the LONG-term consequences of our actions on this planet and seek to find a sustainable, closed-loop co-existence with our environment.

    Controlling our impact on C02 is a part of this goal, but when we put all of the eggs in one basket it improperly frames the discussion/debate. Regardless of how much all the C02 we’re pumping into the environment, it is NOT sustainable and NOT by any means a balanced closed loop–therefore, we need to change things.

    As for the religious counter argument seen sometimes, the approach is not to get sucked into a theological debate or counter against religion in general. Instead, it is much better to step back and find common ground that if God exists and He created this planet (however you want to define that) then our position here is one of stewardship and accountability and not merely dominance. The concept of stewardship and accountability is not unique to religion, it is a part of the human condition. Most major world religions have these as doctrinal cores and any religious person who actually understands their religion will quickly come to that common ground.

  8. @Derek,

    I’d also like to add to your list:

    8 ) No, scientists in the 70’s didn’t think Global Cooling was an issue. That was one article in one magazine that’s been propped up and repeated as if it was common knowledge at the time.

    However, it is true that some pollutants are actually, in a way, temporary slowing the Earth’s warming by blocking solar radiation from reaching the planet. This doesn’t mean the solution is more pollution, though. Making that the solution would be like trying to get out of debt by borrowing more money. Yes, it gives you money (cooling) right now, but eventually you need to pay up and then your debt (heating) will be much, much worse!

  9. The Captain

    I have been saying for a while now that GW denialist are exactly the same as creationist. Hell, in most cases they are actually the same people! But even when they are not, they are using the exact same lines of attacks on “science” as each other. They both use arguments that are structured around and built on, the exact same fallacies. The movements themselves share the same persecution complexes and arrogance against “intellectuals”, and both stem from religious beliefs (one being some invisible friend can not be wrong, the other being some invisible hand must never be regulated).

    Next time you talk to a creationists, ask them if they believe in GW too. It’s almost always a predictable answer.

  10. John

    It’s pretty obvious why the issue of climate change, which should be a simple factual question to be answered by science, has become such a divisive political issue.

    The people who deny it subscribe to the belief that the free market can solve every problem. And while there’s some evidence that market-based policies can be effective in protecting the environment, in SOME cases, global warming is not one of those cases. If global warming is real (which I think it is), it’s one problem that the free market cannot be realistically expected to deal with. It’s such a big problem that it’s not in any one person’s interests to curb carbon emissions.

    So, when faced with a very real problem that clearly cannot be solved by the free market, free market fundamentalists have a choice to make: they can rethink their ideology, or they can deny the facts that challenge it.

    Obviously, it’s easier for most people to ignore or deny facts that prove them wrong, rather than adjusting their views to fit with reality.

  11. @Caleb Jones,

    Sadly, some religious folks just see that “scientists” said the Earth is warming. They then think back to the “scientists” who said creationism was wrong and assume that because they disagreed with one, they have to disagree with the other. It’s a shame too because (religion vs science aside) religious folks should be natural allies given the idea that this planet is really God’s and we’re only watching it over for him. If you were watching a vacation home filled with priceless antiques that was owned by the CEO of your company for a week, would you trash it or try to keep it spotless? I’d think most folks would try to keep it as spotless as possible.

  12. kat wagner

    And here’s this: today the US Department of Agriculture came out with its new Plant Hardiness Map. Pretty much, they say, locales have warmed by 5 degrees. But I still don’t think we have enough summer to grow acorn squash and we have to start tomatoes and stuff indoors in like, March.

  13. A climate skeptic you will all enjoy reading is Freeman Dyson.
    For his views, check this link
    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

  14. Wzrd1

    Derek, SOME planets are warming up, others are cooling. Some orbital thingy going on, but that has nothing to do with global warming. ;)
    The solar cycle DOES have an extremely minor bit to do with temperature, but, it’s so modest, it’s barely measurable and for those who WOULD try to pin global warming on it would be hard pressed for how the world warmed more during solar MINIMUM, when solar forcing would be far lower than at maximum, for that fraction of a degree.
    The warming trend DID stall, around the great depression and more so during WWII, with loads of smoke in the air, that is understandable. I guess those folks want to try WWIII on for size… But, the rest of the past century and change has been a net increase.
    Humans are the major cause, but if temperatures increase a few more degrees in some areas, methane hydrates could sublime in massive levels and release a LOT of greenhouse effect methane into the atmosphere.
    Yes, we still ARE coming out of an ice age. Just not thermally. Geologically, we’re still rebounding, but that has zero to do with global temperatures. :)
    I can think of ONE possible warming event that matches our average curve. The day of the Chicxulub event…
    The data set IS limited for science, we only have part of 4.5 billion years history to examine by proxy data sets, due to much of that ancient rock being recycled during continental drift. But, we have plenty of proxy data to know at least a billion years of thermal proxy data with high accuracy.
    Of course, that upsets the creationists, as one billion, let alone four and a half billion years is longer than six thousand years…
    Seriously though, I think that TechyDad has the right of it. The creationists are accustomed to disagreeing with science, even while enjoying all of the benefits of science, it’s become a habit.
    Meanwhile, the money is behind undermining environmental science, as mitigation of global warming from greenhouse gases would cut into their profits. Indeed, if those corporate interests DID decide to back decreasing CO2 releases, they’d back a thermonuclear war, thereby reducing human exhalation, rather than limit fossil fuel combustion emissions.

  15. Carey

    @Derek #5: it’s your last paragraph that really needs to be repeated over and over. On Phil’s last post about this issue, there were several commenters who mentioned some armchair quarterbacking theory and asked, “Have the climate scientists thought of that? Maybe they should look into it.”

    As if the SCIENTISTS WHO DO THIS FOR A LIVING haven’t already checked the half-assed theory that Jim-Bob at home on his computer came up with after 5 minutes of thinking.

    If you come up with a question like that, by all means, do some research yourself to see if it’s been addressed, because chances are, it already has. But don’t come here and post it as a comment as if you’re some brilliant genius who thought of an explanation that has eluded experts in the field, and then expect the rest of us to take any of what you say seriously.

  16. DigitalAxis

    @2. mememine69

    Obama is not a climate scientist. The Occupy Wall Street protestors are not climate scientists. Whether or not they’re discussing global warming is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not global warming is real. You might as well suggest that the giant panda is not going extinct because no gay-rights groups have made it a central part of their message.

  17. BJN

    I just made my donation.

    @ mememine69: Obama is a pragmatic, centrist politician running for reelection with a narrow jobs focus that fits this country’s inability to deal with more than one important issue at a time. You’d have to be incredibly naive to think that politicians don’t ignore real crises. If you think that the content of the President’s speeches is some kind of refutation of the reality of global warming, you need more oxygen to the brain. And if you don’t think that Occupy protesters care about global warming and CO2, I advise you to talk to a few protestors.

  18. Chris

    Actually I was talking about this a little today in my class. A good resource is
    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp
    It was written about the ozone hole and the denialism around that, but you can easily find parallels with the climate denial. Felt good showing the students how people manufacture doubt. Although I warned them that they better not do it or I’ll hunt them down!

  19. Sam H

    I like everything that’s being said here (well, save for mememine69; no comment necessary there ;) ), but seriously people: do you REALLY hope that politicians will create and adopt a broad, carbon-reducing legislative proposal that will REALLY keep us at 350ppm?? Especially given the utter failure of Kyoto for every year of its pitiful existence?? (Not accusing all of you of thinking exactly that, but basically: does anyone here really still hold on to legislation as a way to really fix this issue??

    If you do, I can only say wake up. The rapidly-diminishing possibility that it will we now know was incredibly miniscule to begin with. The free-market bigots are still very powerful and very prevalent, and their system isn’t going down until it absolutely has to (which will probably end up being at 11:59 PM).

    So if you can’t beat it, use it. The ONLY solution we have left…is technology. The day we can create a clean source of energy that can outdo both coal and oil in terms of cost/output and versatility is the day we’ll know we’ve kicked global warming in the ass. Until then – slowly improve what we have, and relentlessly search for miracles within them.

  20. GreggM

    Nice, an island of sanity on the topic, I’ve felt like I have been on a one man war against the denialists!

  21. DigitalAxis

    @10. TechyDad

    Very true. I was raised by relgious people who took the concept of “stewardship of the Earth” very seriously. They’re just not the loud reactionaries who come into conflict with scientists and politicians all the time.

    I don’t think creationism is really about religion at all. It’s a mindset that says “I’m special, I’m privileged, I have it made, I know better, anything that tries to subvert that must be destroyed,” and it affects ‘liberated’ new-agers as much as religious folk. And really anyone. It’s just as dangerous a trap for scientists and skeptics to fall into.

  22. Sir Craig

    DigitalAxis @14:

    You win. I [heart] giant pandas. And mememine69: Learn some actual debating skills.

  23. Mark Schaffer

    And cue the clueless deniers in three…two…one…

  24. shunt1

    Yes dear!

    A wise husband soon learns what to say…

    Hey, has anyone identified the weather station responsible for that hot spot over Russia yet? It would be interesting to see what the actual raw data being reported was.

    Oh well, nobody dares to ask simple questions anymore.

  25. Memo to any climate contrarians – before you comment here please check here :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    & here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

    & here :

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

    Plus click on my name here for the ‘RealClimate’ website index and starting point.

    To see if whatever claim you wish to make has already been refuted – usually repeatedly & long ago. Because chances are, whatever the contrarian claim you might wish to make is, it will be a stale one long known to be a climate canard. Really, we’ve heard them (almost?) all.

    Don’t believe me? Then check those websites & playlists and see for yourselves!

    Save yourselves from looking foolish.

  26. Derek and TechyDad,

    10.) The medieval cooling was localized to Europe (therefore not global) and the year without a summer was the result of a volcanic eruption.

    These are two more denialist whines that do not improve with age.

    A side note about a bit of music and science fusion: Rasputina has a song called “The Year Without a Summer.” For those who like their history of science and global climate lessons set to music.

  27. Daniel J. Andrews

    Phil…I might have a comment trapped in the spam filter. Thanks.

  28. shunt1

    My guess about that hot spot above northern Russia shown in the global temperature difference plot, will end up being an instrumentation problem that was not caught by the GISS software. At least I have learned my lessons and saved the plot that Phil showed on his previous posting on this subject.

    There are very few weather stations in that geological location, so it is a good bet that the problem originated from a single instrument. In the past, problems like this have been traced to an instrument that was blown down and buried in snow, or a M was missing in the temperature field of the METAR reports.

    Shame that nobody dares to ask simple questions like this anymore.

    YES DEAR!

  29. George

    I’m a scientist, and I never trust another scientist who tells me the science is settled, and if I question it, I am ignorant. That’s belief, not science. Being skeptical = good, AGW faith = foolish.

  30. Not only was 2011 the ninth hottest year on record, 2011 was also – as Chris (#14) pointed out on the last HIRGO* thread – the hottest ever La Nina year. I think that is a key point well worth remembering and stressing to those who might falsely claim 2011 being “only” the ninth hottest year somehow equals stable or cooling planetary temperatures.

    The source linked to my name here confirms that saying :

    It is important to note that during La Nina years like the current one, although the planet continues to absorb more heat than it emits, cool waters upwelling in the Pacific suck a lot of that heat out of the atmosphere – affecting weather around the globe, and causing thermometer readings to dip. This year was, however, the warmest la nina year in the record, as the graph below (from NOAA) shows.

    Illustrating it well with a powerfully convincing graph. (Please click the link in my name then scroll down to see that for yourselves.)

    Oh & that blogger is a fan of yours too BA. :-)

    ————————–

    * HIRGO = Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating, a more straightforward and better descriptive term than Anthropogenic Global Warming in my view. Because ‘Anthropogenic’ is a bit of a technical euphemism where ‘Human Induced’ is more direct , because the *Rapidity* of the climaet change here is a big part of the problem and because ‘Warming’ sounds misleadingly mild and pleasant and creates an inaccurate impression when our planet is indeed getting too hot too quickly.

  31. Messier Tidy Upper

    @16. Sam H :

    I like everything that’s being said here (well, save for mememine69; no comment necessary there ), but seriously people: do you REALLY hope that politicians will create and adopt a broad, carbon-reducing legislative proposal that will REALLY keep us at 350ppm??

    No. I have very little faith in politicians and am very cynical and disillusioned on that score. :-(

    Also we can’t be kept at 350 ppm Co2 because we’re already well, well past that wth Carbon dioxide levels presently around 390 ppm – folks can keep track of this via this site :

    http://co2now.org/

    if they want.

    So, no, regrettably, there’s no way we’re going to reduce the CO2 levels to 350 ppm almost certainly not for centuries or longer and I expect carbon dioxide levels to keep rising for some time yet esp. given recent record high levels of GHG emissions. :-(

    But, thing is, we need to keep up the political pressure and keep trying to get politicians to accept reality and prepare all our nations for the consequences. We need to act and at least slow the rate of the rise as much as we possibly can because the more we do and sooner we do it the better our chances of reducing the scale of the problem will be. Which means the more and sooner we do to fight HIRGO the fewer people will die and the less severe the human suffering and environmental damage will be.

    Especially given the utter failure of Kyoto for every year of its pitiful existence?? (Not accusing all of you of thinking exactly that, but basically: does anyone here really still hold on to legislation as a way to really fix this issue??

    No, legislation including international treaties won’t fix it. Not all of it. mybe not even much of it. But does that mean it isn’t worth something? I’m not so sure of that. If such politicking raises awareness and starts to get people and companies acting differently then that’s something – better than nothing.

    If you do, I can only say wake up. The rapidly-diminishing possibility that it will we now know was incredibly miniscule to begin with. The free-market bigots are still very powerful and very prevalent, and their system isn’t going down until it absolutely has to (which will probably end up being at 11:59 PM).

    Two words there : Peak & Oil. :-(

    So if you can’t beat it, use it. The ONLY solution we have left…is technology. The day we can create a clean source of energy that can outdo both coal and oil in terms of cost/output and versatility is the day we’ll know we’ve kicked global warming in the ass. Until then – slowly improve what we have, and relentlessly search for miracles within them.

    Yes, absolutely, YES!

    I don’t know about “only” solution since I think we’ll need to use a combination of lot of things, incl. treaties and taxes which is already happening albeit rather ineffectually and controversially.

    But technologyand industry – the things that got us into this mess will have to play a huge part in getting us out of it too.

    We’ll need nuclear power as well as renewables. There have been some very good suggestions made, I think, for such things as Thorium reactors :

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/should_we_try_thorium_reactors.php

    We’ll have to do other things too many of which the greens & liberals will hate. Plus many
    things that the rightwingers, freemarketers and everyone else will hate at the same time. But this problem is going to get so bad that we won’t be able to be too picky.

    The sooner we do act, the less costly in every way it’ll be and the more picky and less desperate we’ll be able to be in the end. I think if the Right-wing opponents of takingactiontomitigate HIRGO actually lived in the real world and faced reality then they’d be pushing equally hard for action now that’s less severe and more incremental rather than face probably far more draconian, more costly, less effective action later.

    BTW folks, this rather long but interesting post :

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/06/the_global_warming_crisis.php

    by astrophysicist blogger Ethan Siegel is also well worth reading and explains the HIRGO issue very nicely too. :-)

  32. @2. mememine69 – January 25th, 2012 at 1:23 pm:

    Deny This: From Obama’s 2012 StateoftheUnionAddress; ONLY one mention of climate change (crisis):
    “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.” –This is a crisis?
    And NO mention of climate change in his 2011 StateoftheUnionAddress either.

    I suppose you take Obama’s word as gospel and accept his priorities on everything then, mememine69? :roll:

    When it comes to assessing science what Obama says is utterly irrelvant. So is OccupyWall Street and Al Gore too btw.

    Barack H. Obama’s acceptance of political reality does NOT justify your rejection of scientific climatological reality.

    Comprendez?

    Occupywallstreet’s list of demands does not include climate change because of the bank funded CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS and governments taxing the air we breathe. Climate change money would be better spent on real people.

    Climate change – Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating – affects real people. Wrecks their lives. Will kill some and make others homeless.

    Climatologists are real people. Doing real science. Getting real death threats and hate mail from clueless trolls like you – & note that I hardly ever call people trolls at all but I’ve encountered you before & have no hesitation calling you what you are here.

    Want to see a real person, a real climate scientist – who is an evangelical Christian and former supporter of Newt Gingrich who wrote a cancelled chapter for one of his books? Then click on my name for link.

    Do you think Michael Mann, Katharine Hayhoe, Richard Alley and other climate scientists are just imaginary fictional people? :roll:

    Yes pollution is real but CO2 fears were not. Now we can preserve, protect and respect the planet instead of holding the CO2 gun to our children’s heads.

    Do you realise how ironic that line is? Do you have any idea at all? No, I don’t suppose you do. :roll:

  33. caerbannog

    Well, it’s been almost exactly six months since the CRU released all of the raw “climategate” temperature data that AGW skeptics were demanding. We are talking about the entire raw temperature data collection that was the object of the FOI storm that skeptics unleashed on the CRU some 3 years ago.

    And as for the skeptics who were demanding all the CRU’s raw data? Were they chomping at the bit to scrutinize/analyze the data they were demanding? Were they ready to “hit the ground running” with their own data analysis tools and methods?

    It would appear not — since the CRU released all of its raw data, there has been no activity from the skeptical side except for the chirping of crickets.

    And that is really pathetic. A competent programmer/analyst could perform a full verification of the CRU’s global-temperature results in just a few days (and that includes coding up the all the software needed to compute independent global-average temperature results).

    The basic gridding/averaging algorithm is not that difficult to code up — an on-the-ball undergraduate compsci student would have no trouble doing it. It turns out that even the most simplified, “dumbed down” gridding/averaging procedure applied to the CRU raw temperature will produce global-average temperature results very similar to what the CRU has published.

    But here we are, 6 months later — and nobody on the skeptical side has come forward and produced any analysis results that either confirm or contradict the CRU’s results. Not a single skeptic has analyzed the CRU data and either acknowledged that the CRU’s results are correct or uncovered any problems with the CRU’s methodology.

    The fact that no skeptics have come forward with their own independent temperature reconstruction based on the CRU raw data in the six months since it was released tells folks all they need to know about global-warming “skeptics”.

    Seriously, folks — generating a very good “ballpark” reproduction of the published global-average temperature results from the CRU raw data is not a very difficult task — I could walk college freshmen programming students through the entire procedure, step by step. But it seems that even a project as straightforward as this one is just too much for your typical global-warming skeptic to tackle.

    So c’mon skeptics, didn’t 31,000 scientific experts on your side sign that OISM petition? Why haven’t we seen you or at least one of your 31,000 fellow experts come forward with an independent analysis of the CRU data yet? It’s not like you guys haven’t had enough time — you’ve had 6 months to perform the equivalent of a few days’ worth of work.

  34. PCB31

    Off topic, but relevant to Phil’s cause: The horrible Community College that I attend holds a class at a Vo-Tech that bans your blog. You may want to contact sciototech.org and sscc.edu about that.

  35. DaveN

    @22. Messier Tidy Upper … A M E N… Wow, I actually looked at that baiter’s link and wow, he’s got no grasp of irony or pretty much anything other than his own twisted outlook (if that!). I will give him credit for being a master of that baiting strategy, though. Cough. ;-)

  36. Infinite123Lifer

    The local news here just did a story on Newberry National Volcanic Monument. (hope I copy/pasted correctly), I have not had time to watch the video as I was anxious to share this news. I realize how tangential this experimental volcanic power post is to shooting down global warming denialism, but, well. . . I don’t want to hit a wall going 100 mph, and I care greatly for the future of Earth and my family and generations to come so I get excited when I hear about Any New Possibilities (and besides that it cant be That tangential to the real issue of HIRGO). Although, the possibility of removing our dependence on fossil fuels worldwide anytime soon is . . . probably I am assuming entirely laughable (for starters because the entire world does not feel or cannot or will not choose to stop using oil, [hate to be a debbie downer here, unfortunately the reality of the world has a tendency to do this to me less often than it should perhaps]), the hope and the attempts to assuage fossil fuel dependence cannot and should not and appears is not being given up on. Some have pointed out, some people on both sides of many issue’s have expressed a desire to be . . . “good stewards” if you will, and in general, learn together how to stop pollution, that is win-win (to a certain degree) in my eyes. If people cannot agree on what “will” happen at least they agree on what “should” happen, as has been alluded to before. We should become more pro-active in the long term nature of our biosphere. Yeah, I ‘ll hug a tree, so what? I like trees .

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=volcano%20power%20newberry%20volcano&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CCkQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmynorthwest.com%2F11%2F616173%2FSeattle-company-drilling-into-volcano-to-find-renewable-energy&ei=c-ggT_a4KqeviQLKmaH_Bw&usg=AFQjCNG_B3U7UlOF4Q8pkNztlpBFVmBoEA

    I was shocked to hear that they are going to try this. To my knowledge: this certainly sounds groundbreakingly cool, and hot aaand kinda scary. It is nice to see news around here dedicating 5-8 minutes covering “where to find clean energy” at the very least.

    I am not sure how clean or productive or “not potentially harmful” volcano power is. To my knowledge volcano power is basically theoretical at this point, unless of course this has been attempted already to some degree elsewhere in the world, the article mentioned Switzerland, but one try certainly does not count for a fair shake at it (although I don’t know how many “tries” of any other tests in history resulted in earthquakes). Any reservations I have with potentialities of danger by drilling are stunted by the necessity to forge a new world. I ask myself, would I rather have earthquakes or another Fukushima Daiichi? IOW would I mind living near Newberry?

    I have not watched the video, i copy/pasted to yet but I am guessing that there will be no geothermal heated gas stations in the foreseeable future. And for that matter I am not sure what percentage of needed energy volcano power can or might some day be able to produce. The article mentions producing electricity in 3 to 4 years but they apparently start the drilling experimentally this year sometime. :) More importantly can this be the early start to a brighter, cleaner future.

    Not saying this makes everything better, but I found it rather. . . positive minded.

  37. Andreas H

    A couple of weeks ago I read about a British study that was studying the long term effects of global warming. Especially the influence of the long cycles between warming periods and ice ages. To their own surprise they found out that the global warming that is occurring now could push back the next “scheduled” ice age and ultimately stabilize our current period of relatively mild and stable climate.

    Ultimately endless warming would cause a lot of problems but glaciation through a new ice age would certainly be much, much worse.

    While I am a strong supporter for most proposed actions against global warming as they have a ton of beneficial secondary effects (air quality, preservation of forests, reducing dependence on fossil fuels) it might be the more prudent approach to look into climate control itself. Both an ice age or prolonged global warming would end in disaster. But I think should we need some emergency climate “control” it would be much easier to cool down our planet than to heat it up. Blocking enough sunlight would probably do the trick to cool the planet down but heating it up seems a much longer and more complicated process. You might argue that we are already heating up the planet, but it is a relatively slow process and should an ice age arrive it might be too slow, unreliable and hazardous to pump green house gases in to our atmosphere while blocking out sunlight seems somewhat straight forward. I guess if financial and political concerns would be eliminated building some sort of “shield” that blocks a certain percentage of sunlight should be already technically possible.

    Well that’s just me rambling, I kind of just wanted to know if some people have some insight to said study. Here is a link to a Huffington Post article on the study:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/09/global-warming-is-delaying-ice-age_n_1194049.html

  38. Narvi

    @timmy
    “I know other coutries struggle with anti-vax groups, but are they as dumb as the US when it comes to evolution and climate change?”

    Evolution, no. Climate change, yes (I’m talking general public, in Europe, but I think it’s the same elsewhere).

    I’ve often talked to other Europeans who laugh at Americans for doubting the science of evolution, talking about how silly they are, while they themselves doubt climate change. A real facepalm moment.

    Of course, our politicians are usually smart enough to know what’s going on. Which I’m very grateful for, even though they haven’t done much about it yet.

  39. Infinite123Lifer
  40. Techs

    @Sam H
    An organization called the Club of Rome,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome stated as side note that increased resources for humans increase the rate at which they destroy the environment. History has shown that to be true in the last 42 years. Cheap energy has probably been the worse culprit.
    Mankind has accepted the belief that science can dig us out of the hole we have put ourselves in but in reality it either backfires (unexpected side effects) or we use it to dig the hole deeper.
    Sorry, but science is not the answer. It is merely a tool, a two edged sword.

  41. Nigel Depledge

    memmine69 (2) said:

    From Obama’s 2012 StateoftheUnionAddress; ONLY one mention of climate change (crisis):
    “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation.” –This is a crisis?

    BO is a politician. He knows what he can and cannot hope to achieve in the US Congress. And the bulk of the congresscritters refuse to acknowledge that AGW is even a real phenomenon. Measuring the state of the Earth’s climate by looking at what one politician says is like trying to observe the Andromeda galaxy in a cup of tea – completely irrelevant.

    Did you have a point?

    And NO mention of climate change in his 2011 StateoftheUnionAddress either.

    So what?

    Occupywallstreet’s list of demands does not include climate change because of the bank funded CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS

    Again, so what?

    Just because carbon cap-and-trade has come in for heavy criticism – most of it well-deserved, because the banks have set it up to suit themselves rather than to try and achieve anything concrete – does not mean that other solutions are not needed, and does not mean that the issue itself (AGW) is not real.

    and governments taxing the air we breathe.

    Wait, what? What governments tax air?

    Climate change money would be better spent on real people.

    What the hell does this mean?

    Yes pollution is real but CO2 fears were not.

    This is a simple lie. CO2 (and other GHGs such as methane) are probably the biggest industrial-pollution issue since acid rain. And it’s not only caused by heavy industry, but by a wide variety of activities. The difficulty is that the effects are delayed because it takes some time for the Earth’s climate and other relevant systems to respond to the changes that we have wrought.

    Now we can preserve, protect and respect the planet instead of holding the CO2 gun to our children’s heads.

    This is empty rhetoric.

    Did you have an actual argument to make?

  42. Tony Mach

    The attacks on Michael Mann are especially perplexing, as the only credible critic of him is Steve McIntyre, who just wants to take Michael Mann’s work apart in order to hurt Michael Mann. I find it good that Michael Mann deletes all comments by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to supposed scientific issues at RealClimate – it would only distract from the cause, after all.

  43. Nigel Depledge

    Also @ Mememine69 –
    I’d be interested to know why you think the data and arguments that have convinced the scientific community that AGW is real are not.

    For example, do you doubt that temperature records show a sharp upswing since the 1970s (that is so often called the “hockey stick” graph)? If so, why? Have you examined the primary literature to reach your conclusion, or do you rely on secondary sources?

    Do you doubt that historic temperature proxies show a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global average temperature? If so, why? Have you examined the primary literature to reach your conclusion, or do you rely on secondary sources?

    Do you doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? If so, why? Have you examined the primary literature to reach your conclusion, or do you rely on secondary sources?

    Do you doubt that most of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic? If so, why? Have you examined the primary literature to reach your conclusion, or do you rely on secondary sources?

    Do you doubt that glaciers and sea ice worldwide are decreasing in volume? If so, why? Have you examined the primary literature to reach your conclusion, or do you rely on secondary sources?

    Do you doubt that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000? If so, why? Have you examined the primary literature to reach your conclusion, or do you rely on secondary sources?

    This is just for starters, but I’d be interested in your answers to these questions.

  44. TheBlackCat

    @ Tony Mach: Steve McIntyre is credible? Are you kidding me? He knows practically nothing about the climate and has a long history of painful abuse of statistics to reach pre-determined conclusions. His credibility is exceedingly close to zero.

  45. Tony Mach

    And the usage of FOI by climate deniers against the UEA was especially insidious, as Jonathan Jones noted to David Palmer that the data was already available in the public domain and simultaneously confidential. Clearly the FOI were just intended to gum up the works at UEA. Shame on those climate deniers.

  46. Tony Mach

    @TheBlackCat Says: Steve McIntyre is credible? Are you kidding me?

    Well, I said he only wants to hurt Michael Mann, now didn’t I?

  47. And just for the record: I fully concur with Michael Mann when he says about Steve McIntyre that he is extremely dishonest, deceptive, and intentionally so. And that his work is really scandalous and this should be broadcast as widely as possible. Which I did hereby.

  48. And I am very glad that Climate Scientists like Michael Mann don’t engage in inflammatory and ad hominem public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate!

  49. Nigel Depledge

    Sam H (16) said:

    So if you can’t beat it, use it. The ONLY solution we have left…is technology. The day we can create a clean source of energy that can outdo both coal and oil in terms of cost/output and versatility is the day we’ll know we’ve kicked global warming in the ass. Until then – slowly improve what we have, and relentlessly search for miracles within them.

    This would be easier if the playing field were level. Maybe we should start by cutting all subsidies to the coal, oil and gas industries. Then we might start to see some serious money headed for innovative technologies.

    However, there are several technologies under development, some of which are pretty promising, but none of which can match the relatively low cost of oil (although, if you take out the subsidies, a couple are at least in the same ballpark):
    Wave power generators;
    Tidal power generators (the new idea here is to use specially-designed turbines in places with high tidal currents such as the Pentland Firth; estuarial tidal barrages are a non-starter because of their imapct on local wildlife);
    Solar thermal generation (using solar energy to generate a temperature gradient that can be used to generate electricity, commonly by an upward flow of warm air);
    New types of solar panels that incorporate both photoelectric and thermal technologies (the thermal technology component is similar to that used in RTGs);
    Wind generators;
    Micro-generation that reduces demand on a national grid (this is only properly viable if the infrastructure allows surplus micro-generated power to be sold back to the grid, but Germany has pioneered this system);
    Mixed micro-generation systems to allow some users to go “off-grid”;
    Energy storage (either by cooling or heating some substance in an insulated container of some sort) to permit intermittent energy sources to supply power reliably;
    Hydrogen fuel cells for motor vehicles (OK, so you still have to generate the hydrogen in the first place, but this looks like the best option for allowing electric vehicles to compete with the internal combustion engine);
    Superconducting power cables for lossless long-distance power transmission.

    These are just the ones of which I am aware. I daresay there are others at various stages of development.

    Some people have complained that reducing reliance on coal and oil would cripple our economies, but I really don’t believe that, not when there are so many opportunities for new technologies to take the place of coal, oil and gas.

    Then there are groups exploring the possibility of carbon sequestration and storage, which can only ever be a bridging technology (after all, good storage sites are a finite resource) but might buy us time to get through the difficult transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

  50. Adrock

    It’s easy to deny AGW living in England, we pretty much don’t have a summer every year.

  51. Infinite123Lifer

    “And here’s this: today the US Department of Agriculture came out with its new Plant Hardiness Map.”

    http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2012/01/25/new_federal_map_for_what_to_plant_reflects_warming/

    Interesting.

    What would plants know about climate? (sarcasm, obviously)

    “But I still don’t think we have enough summer to grow acorn squash”

    You never know, you might find a squash in denial, or a whole crop for that matter :)

  52. Solius

    @ mememine69: Checked out your blog(if anyone else is thinking about it, beware– proxy up first). It is reminiscent of the paranoid ramblings found on Above Top Secret… your ever contribute, there?

  53. Nigel Depledge

    Adrock (34) said:

    It’s easy to deny AGW living in England, we pretty much don’t have a summer every year.

    Yeah? And what about the gradually milder winters we’ve been getting over the last 20 years or so? Last winter was pretty damn cold, reminiscent of the proper winters we used to get (I did once bike to school on roads that were 5 inches deep in snow), but we have hardly had any cold weather at all this winter – just the odd couple of days here and there really.

  54. Jimbob

    In the author’s first point, there’s a big leap from “the Earth is warming up” straight to “humans are why”. These are two entirely different conclusions, each with their own scientific rationale. The second of these conclusions is false.

    The author’s remaining four points address propaganda and money, both which fuel the machinery of politics, not science. And since the alarmist has a political agenda, the “science” is really just for show.

  55. Cow farts worldwide produce more greenhouse gas effect than all the CO2 emitted by man. This insane politically-motivated fixation on a harmless trace gas being the sole cause of global warming is inexcusable. But, at least it’s starting to unravel and facts are coming out.

    Personally, I’m more afraid of global cooling in the next couple of decades.

  56. Chas, PE SE

    You can stop quoting the science, or the 99% of climatologists who accept AGW. It doesn’t do any good:

    http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2012/01/thorner-climate-change-alarmism-falsely-promoted-at-tribune.html

    This is what we have to put up with.

  57. Gary Ansorge

    57. Peter Bromberg

    It’s not the cow farts that are the problem, it’s the cow burps(responsible for about 95% of cow methane release) however, that’s pretty much a carbon neutral release,,, the decay of the vegetation the cows eat would also release methane.

    ,,,and from Wiki,,,

    “A 400-page United Nations report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that the livestock sector is “responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions”

    This 18% would also be there even if the cows weren’t,,,

    As far as global cooling possibilities are concerned, nuclear winter might do the trick,,,for a little while,,,but there’s always the rebound to look out for,,,

    Gary 7

  58. TheBlackCat

    In the author’s first point, there’s a big leap from “the Earth is warming up” straight to “humans are why”. These are two entirely different conclusions, each with their own scientific rationale. The second of these conclusions is false.

    Thank you for that detailed rebuttal.

    The author’s remaining four points address propaganda and money, both which fuel the machinery of politics, not science. And since the alarmist has a political agenda, the “science” is really just for show.

    Right, so practically every single member of several entire branches of science from dozens of countries and languages, as well as pretty much every science organization and society in the world, is involved in a massive, world-wide conspiracy to…do what, exactly? Scare people for kicks?

  59. Ron1

    @26 & @30 Shunta1 sarcastically said, ” … Oh well, nobody dares to ask simple questions anymore. …”

    ……………………………………………….

    Sigh, I had hoped that someone else would have given Shunta1 a simple answer to his simple question. Since it hasn’t happened, I may as well give him the same answer I gave in answer to Just-a-Blulldozer a few days ago who was arguing, essentially, the same point:

    “@81. Just a Bulldozer Said: “Of course it looks hot in the north, because they have had to extrapolate thousands of square kilometers, because there are no thermometers measuring real temperatures. This is science and conclusive evidence to you guys?”
    ………………………………………………………
    Jeez, the stupidity and ignorance that one individual is willing to post in a public place simply astounds me and I think the above comment qualifies Just a Bulldozer for for winner of the most stupid comment (although there are some really close, denier, runner-ups).

    For example, it is really stupid to imply that conclusive temperature evidence is lacking in the north due to the low density of surface reporting stations when, in fact, I can get surface temperature data for ANY surface location provided, (1) there is an infra-red SAT PIC available, (2) the location is free of cloud and (3) recognition that the valid area for the temperature obtained is dependent upon the resolution of the satellite radiometer (generally 1km or smaller).

    Further, in case you choose to argue there is no SAT PIC coverage for the Arctic, consider that while the GOES 10.7um imagery is limited to about 70 degrees N lat, NOAA’s polar orbiting 11um satellites do cover the high arctic, and in higher resolution. As well, many other countries have their own weather satellites with equivalent capabilities with the result that there is an overwhelming body of thermal data for the north down to at least 1km resolution.

    So, educate yourself before you spew any more idiocy.”

  60. Chris Winter

    @MM69: You need to decide which side of the fence you are on. First you say AGW is not a crisis because Occupy Wall Street never mentions it and President Obama barely does. Then you complain about parties unnamed (us) “holding the CO2 gun to our children’s heads.”

    You’ve been all over the blogosphere for years now, under one nym or another, spouting this indefensible position (or rather, these indefensible positions.) Time for you to take notice of the facts.

    Oh, and regarding your blog: Anyone who starts off by referring to “Glowbull warming” discredits themselves right then and there.

  61. Chris Winter

    Chas, PE SE wrote (#58): “You can stop quoting the science, or the 99% of climatologists who accept AGW. It doesn’t do any good…”

    True, it wouldn’t make a dent on Illinois Review. But that’s the self-proclaimed “crossroads of the conservative community.” Let’s not forget the lurkers — people who haven’t made up their minds. Pointing out the facts can do some good there.

  62. Chris Winter

    RE: #35, Caerbannog — BRAVO! This message bears repeating ad infinitum: Denialists have plenty of protests, but no evidence to back them up. If they had evidence, I trust they would present it. Since they don’t, all they can do is blather and, in a few cases, file harassment lawsuits.

    In this thread, that goes for mememine69 (#2), Jimbob (#56) and Peter Broberg (#57). You have nothing solid. Please stop blathering.

  63. Steve Metzler

    Chris, don’t leave George (#31) out of your list of inane blatherers:

    I’m a scientist, and I never trust another scientist who tells me the science is settled, and if I question it, I am ignorant. That’s belief, not science. Being skeptical = good, AGW faith = foolish.

    So… if one of your scientist friends happened to be an evolutionary biologist, and he told you the science concerning evolution was settled (i.e. evolution by natural selection is for all intents and purposes a fact), then you would assume that his acceptance of this fact, rather than being borne out by thousands and thousands of papers in the primary literature, is instead a matter of ‘faith’?

    I guess you must be a pretty poor excuse for a scientist if that is your worldview. How do you feel about gravity?

  64. TheBlackCat

    I’m a scientist, and I never trust another scientist who tells me the science is settled, and if I question it, I am ignorant. That’s belief, not science. Being skeptical = good, AGW faith = foolish.

    Right on! Down with those foolish physicists and their stupid “atom” hoax! Let’s teach alchemy in science classes.

  65. Tom G.

    Oh I don’t deny global warming is true or not, I simply don’t care.

  66. MartinM

    The whole ‘settled science’ thing is sophistry; it’s a poor attempt at a trap, nothing more. If we say the science is settled, they say we’re dogmatic. If we say the science isn’t settled, they say there’s no reason to act until it is. The deniers can’t win on the science, and on some level most of them know it. All that leaves are cheap debating tricks to attempt to deceive spectators, and possibly themselves.

  67. TheBlackCat

    Oh I don’t deny global warming is true or not, I simply don’t care.

    Ah, I see, you aren’t a denialist, you are just a sociopath. Thanks for clearing that up.

  68. George

    Hey #65 and #66, thanks for the replies. But first, which theory of gravity — Newton’s or Einstein’s? I have a hard time telling the difference when I slip on the ice — hurts all the same, interestingly enough.

    And what about those innane blatherers who don’t buy into string theory, the Miasmatic Theory of Disease, Phrenology, or Pilt Down Man. Reputable science there — those denier folks are crazy!

    Just wait a few years and we’ll see who’s right… No denial here — the Earth warms and cools. And don’t forget, the polar ice caps haven’t been around for the majority of time Earth has been around. It’s just that eating vegan and driving a Prius won’t make a bit of difference. I’m going to go enjoy a steak and guzzle some gasoline in my V-8!

  69. Sean McCorkle

    (late to this party, hope I haven’t missed all the fun)

    Jimbob@56
    In the author’s first point, there’s a big leap from “the Earth is warming up” straight to “humans are why”. These are two entirely different conclusions, each with their own scientific rationale. The second of these conclusions is false.

    Okay, I’ll bite. Given a great deal of evidence that indicates that the second conclusion is true, and the lack of any other plausible alternative working hypothesis that withstands any kind of detailed scrutiny, which explains the first point, what makes it false exactly?

    Peter Bromberg@57
    Cow farts worldwide produce more greenhouse gas effect than all the CO2 emitted by man. This insane politically-motivated fixation on a harmless trace gas being the sole cause of global warming is inexcusable.

    That’s a bunch of baloney. Any carbon emitted from a cow came from grass it just ate and is carbon that was removed from the atmosphere in the same year. There is no net atmospheric carbon contribution from cows. Humans, on the other hand, are extracting enormous amounts of carbon that were sequestered underground, hundreds of millions of years ago, during the carboniferous period, and we are injecting that carbon back into the atmosphere at an increasing rate. There is a clear net increase in atmospheric carbon due to this human activity.

    George@70

    Just wait a few years and we’ll see who’s right… No denial here — the Earth warms and cools. And don’t forget, the polar ice caps haven’t been around for the majority of time Earth has been around.

    Those prehistoric, slow changes aren’t so worrisome; the current rapid temperature increase is.

    I’m going to go enjoy a steak and guzzle some gasoline in my V-8!

    You, and tens to hundreds of millions of others. Thats the problem.

  70. Steve Metzler

    Obviously not here to discuss the science, eh George? I guess we had you pegged just right as another blathering time-waster.

    Just wait a few years and we’ll see who’s right… No denial here — the Earth warms and cools. And don’t forget, the polar ice caps haven’t been around for the majority of time Earth has been around.

    Yes, but neither was mankind, with a huge dependency on the climate being ‘just right’ like it is now – the only way we can even attempt to feed 7 billion people, and counting. And with no Antarctic ice cap (or Greenland), sea levels would be 60 -75m higher than at present. Hope you didn’t forget your rubber ducky, George.

    It’s just that eating vegan and driving a Prius won’t make a bit of difference.

    Straw man. Every little bit helps, but what we really need to do is change the way we generate electricity on a global scale to use renewables instead of coal, and then modify our transportation to use that clean electricity.

  71. George

    On the contrary #71 Steve, science is on my side. Your point so illogically stated:

    Yes, but neither was mankind, with a huge dependency on the climate being ‘just right’ like it is now – the only way we can even attempt to feed 7 billion people, and counting. And with no Antarctic ice cap (or Greenland), sea levels would be 60 -75m higher than at present. Hope you didn’t forget your rubber ducky, George.

    OK — so it was warmer before, but now *with 7 billion* people Earth may *just* catch up to how warm it was before people… er, OK. I guess those dinosaurs must have had a lot of Edsels. I think the Earth has a lot more resiliency than you think. Those wacky forests in Sibera sure do soak up a lot of that CO2, and those algae help a lot too. The Earth is a lot bigger, tougher, and will be around a lot longer than you or I.

    One Earthquake will do a human in — 7 billion organisms of any kind on the planet are just so many temporary lodgers.

    And lets get Solyndra on those Green Jobs — they are just so darned effective! I’ll stick with my car, you can take your scooter to work.

  72. Lime

    Great post. Bookmarked. Thanks for all the links.

  73. Ron1

    @72. George said, ” … science is on my side.”

    ……………………………….

    Huh? Please explain how science is on your side.

    After just finishing amusing myself watching Michael Shermer’s “Baloney Detection Kit” on the Richard Dawkins Foundation TV site (also available on Youtube), I rather think you have baloney on your side, not science.

  74. Sean McCorkle

    George @ 73
    Those wacky forests in Sibera sure do soak up a lot of that CO2, and those algae help a lot too.

    um …looks like they’re not keeping up with what we’re spewing out very well.

  75. caerbannog

    64. Chris Winter Says:
    January 26th, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    RE: #35, Caerbannog — BRAVO! This message bears repeating ad infinitum: Denialists have plenty of protests, but no evidence to back them up….
    ———————

    Of course, I wouldn’t put up a post like that unless I had already done the homework to back it up. When I said that a competent programmer/analyst could perform an independent validation of the published global-average temperature results from the CRU (and GHCN) raw data in just a few days, I wasn’t kidding — because I had already done that myself.

    Here is a plot of the results that I got by running the GHCN and CRU land-temperature station data through my own “hand-rolled” global-average temperature program (written in my spare time in a few days). I have included the NASA/GISS land-temperature index (copy/pasted from the NASA/GISS web-site) as a comparison: http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2210/mycrumyghcnnasaghcn.jpg

    My results generated from the GHCN (NASA/GISS) raw temperature data are plotted in blue. My results generated from the CRU (“climategate”) raw data are plotted in orange. The offical NASA/GISS global land-temperature results are plotted in yellow.

  76. @35 Well, it’s been almost exactly six months since the CRU released all of the raw “climategate” temperature data that AGW skeptics were demanding. We are talking about the entire raw temperature data collection that was the object of the FOI storm that skeptics unleashed on the CRU some 3 years ago.
    And as for the skeptics who were demanding all the CRU’s raw data? Were they chomping at the bit to scrutinize/analyze the data they were demanding? Were they ready to “hit the ground running” with their own data analysis tools and methods?
    It would appear not — since the CRU released all of its raw data, there has been no activity from the skeptical side except for the chirping of crickets.

    Why am I not surprised? I recall reading that some of the FOIA requests that CRU received were based on form letters from a website that hadn’t even been properly edited/filled in – that is, they said things like “Insert 5 countries that you have not yet requested data for”. It was a transparent attempt at vexatious abuse of the FOIA system. They knew damned well that the number of personnel at the CRU couldn’t possibly answer all of the FOIA requests while also doing their research. Most of these requests constituted, basically, a bureaucratic denial-of-service attack. AND with the added barb that at the end of it, they could turn around and snidely ask what CRU was hiding, since they weren’t terribly diligent at answering the flood of requests that were obviously not made in good faith.

  77. @65 Steve Metzler: I wish I could “Favorite” posters like you.

    @68 Martin: The whole ‘settled science’ thing is sophistry; it’s a poor attempt at a trap, nothing more. If we say the science is settled, they say we’re dogmatic. If we say the science isn’t settled, they say there’s no reason to act until it is. The deniers can’t win on the science, and on some level most of them know it. All that leaves are cheap debating tricks to attempt to deceive spectators, and possibly themselves.
    This. I should save this so I can dig it up later. Do you have a blog I can link to?

    @69. TheBlackCat Says:

    Oh I don’t deny global warming is true or not, I simply don’t care.

    Ah, I see, you aren’t a denialist, you are just a sociopath. Thanks for clearing that up.

    I want a favorite poster button. Make it happen, discovermag!

  78. @73 George: The Earth is a lot bigger, tougher, and will be around a lot longer than you or I.

    Sheesh!
    Yes, George, I have no doubt that the Earth is going to be around a lot longer than you or I. Of course, the longevity of you and I (and the other members of the human race) is precisely what I’m concerned about. Animals don’t build cities and farms. Antelopes and birds don’t have to respect national boundaries. When conditions change, they can simply move. Humans don’t have that luxury.

  79. MartinM

    But first, which theory of gravity — Newton’s or Einstein’s?

    Newton’s theory of gravitation is contained within Einstein’s. The latter is a refinement of the former, not a wholesale replacement. As such, where Newton’s law gave good results, Einstein’s field equations give essentially the same results. There are things about gravity which are not settled. The applicability of Newtonian gravitation in the weak-field is about as settled as you can get.

    If you’re really a scientist, you’re a very poor one. More likely, you’re just trolling.

  80. Michael

    I know it is kind of a taboo to talk about it, but climate control goes both ways. As much as we need to prevent an overheating earth a new ice age would be much, much worse for humanity.

    Let me clear some things up first. Global warming is real and our actions definitely play a significant part in it. Most proposed actions should be taken not only for their impact in reducing global warming but also because they will increase our air quality, preserve our forests and reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and many other positive secondary effects. An out of control, overheating earth needs to be prevented at all costs!

    But we should all be aware that if there would never have been any human influence in climate or if we restore “pre-industrialization” conditions sooner or later we will have to deal with the opposite, a threatening ice age. Now we don’t really have a reliable estimate about when the next ice age could hit, the article linked by #39 suggest within 1500 years but I also read estimates as high as 50’000 years.

    I guess what I try to suggest is that climate control becomes a “necessary evil” for any civilization that would approach “type 1″ (planetary) status. So I think we should argue for most immediate actions with a strong emphasis on their secondary effects and start to approach climate control a little differently.

    Effective climate control always needs to be a global initiative, so lets start to talk more about climate control and less about preventing global warming. Right now these would basically be the same thing but in the future climate control can be any number of actions. We should stop painting human influence on the climate as a bad thing and instead look at it in a positive light, but at the same time urge everyone to respect the responsibility that comes with that power. In my own experience a positive approach has a much better chance to succeed in most situations. Instead of telling everyone what they can’t do we encourage research and innovation into a global, cooperative effort to use our knowledge to form a healthy and sustainable environment for our planet.

  81. TheBlackCat

    And what about those innane blatherers who don’t buy into string theory, the Miasmatic Theory of Disease, Phrenology, or Pilt Down Man. Reputable science there — those denier folks are crazy!

    Great list there. You have one pre-scientific notion (miasm), and three things that were never considered established by the scientific community (string theory is still a hypothesis, pilt down man was always considered suspect, and phrenology was mostly rejected by scientists even in its own time, more like astrology than astronomy).

  82. Solius

    George @ 73 wrote:

    OK — so it was warmer before, but now *with 7 billion* people Earth may *just* catch up to how warm it was before people… er, OK. I guess those dinosaurs must have had a lot of Edsels. I think the Earth has a lot more resiliency than you think.

    Yes, the planet is very resilient; it has rebounded from 5 major extinction events. But that is the problem. How can one not see the irony in your “dinosaur” remark is beyond comprehension???

    After extinction events, the top predators don’t survive. But, you are, partially, correct, the climate would, eventually, revert to it’s normal patterns… over the course of millions of years(cap carbonates, and all that), but change in generations???

    Catastrophic!(I hate that word. I argued against catastrophism from years: while, it might have rained for for 40 days and nights, water never covered the highest peaks… at least not since the Archean???)

  83. Solius

    Hmmm… can’t edit? Must be something to do with my scripts???

    Steve Metzler @ 65 replied to a nutter:

    Chris, don’t leave George (#31) out of your list of inane blatherers:

    Hey George, as a scientist, how are you not familiar with no true scottsman?

  84. Nigel Depledge

    Jimbob (56) said:

    In the author’s first point, there’s a big leap from “the Earth is warming up” straight to “humans are why”. These are two entirely different conclusions, each with their own scientific rationale.

    Yes.

    The second of these conclusions is false.

    Bovine egesta!

    First, no natural source (or combination of sources) has been identified that can account for the huge increase in atmospheric CO2 and / or methane. And people have spent a large portion of the last 20 years looking for some.

    Second, the isotope ratios of the CO2 in the atmosphere indicate that the bulk of the additional CO2 comes from fossil sources. And that points the finger squarely at human activity.

    Third, a great many human activities (burning fossil fuels, making cement, intensive agriculture, damming rivers etc.) are known to emit large quantities of CO2 and methane, which are almost certainly the two largest contributors to the recent rapid warming.

    It is not much of a leap to join these dots and reach a sound conclusion.

  85. Nigel Depledge

    I said (55) :

    Adrock (34) said

    Heh. After all those comments further up the thread containing linkys cleared moderation, Adrock’s comment was down at #52.

  86. Nigel Depledge

    Peter Bromberg (57) said:

    Cow farts worldwide produce more greenhouse gas effect than all the CO2 emitted by man.

    Source?

    This insane politically-motivated fixation on a harmless trace gas being the sole cause of global warming is inexcusable. But, at least it’s starting to unravel and facts are coming out.

    Go on, then. What do you consider the facts to be? Let’s have all the detail, so we can discuss it like rational human beings. Or are you afraid that your “facts” won’t stand up to scrutiny?

    Personally, I’m more afraid of global cooling in the next couple of decades.

    Wow. Just wow.

  87. Nigel Depledge

    George (31) said:

    I’m a scientist,

    Ordinarily, I would accept someone at their word, but your subsequent idiocy leads me to question this.

    So, ante up: what is your field of expertise, and where and when did you graduate with your PhD?

    and I never trust another scientist who tells me the science is settled,

    No-one is claiming that climatology is settled. Active research is progressing in many areas. Our understanding of the climate is pretty coarse.

    Of course, this does not change the fact that some of the basics of climatology are so firmly established and supported by so much hard evidence that it is genuinely reasonable to consider it foolish to question them without some pretty extraordinary new evidence.

    and if I question it, I am ignorant.

    Either that, or an idiot.

    That’s belief, not science.

    No, it’s a firm conclusion. If you were a real scientist you would know this.

    To draw a parallel from my own area of expertise (biochemistry), I do not question the structure of DNA because:
    (1) It is firmly supported by a huge array of evidence;
    (2) There is no evidence to contradict the established consensus.

    Thus, to doubt that DNA forms a double-helix with the nitrogenous bases pairing up, supported by the sugar-phosphate backbone, would quite reasonably and justifiably be considered insane. And yet research into the behaviour of DNA continues, in order to refine our undestanding.

    Climatology has an analogous situation. That AGW is real is supported by a huge array of evidence, and it is contradicted by no hard evidence. The climate is, of course, a rather more complex beast than DNA so a greater degree of subtlety is needed to understand the evidence, but the analogy is there. And it is indeed irrational to question that conclusion without some additional and dramatic new evidence.

    And yet climatology research is not “settled”. there is much to be done to refine our understanding.

    Of course, there isn’t a trillion-dollar industry whose existence depends on the structure of DNA being wrong, is there?

    Being skeptical = good, AGW faith = foolish.

    Faith is not required to accept the AGW conclusion. The evidence, should you care to take the time to find out what it is and understand it, is persuasive. And scepticism becomes denialism when you refuse to accept the conclusion drawn from that evidence.

  88. Nigel Depledge

    Tom G (67) said:

    Oh I don’t deny global warming is true or not, I simply don’t care.

    To which The Black Cat replied (69):

    Ah, I see, you aren’t a denialist, you are just a sociopath. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Yes. This.

    @ Tom G – where do you get off dictating the kind of world my grandchildren will live in, you selfish person?

  89. Nigel Depledge

    George (70) said:

    And what about those innane blatherers who don’t buy into string theory, the Miasmatic Theory of Disease, Phrenology, or Pilt Down Man. Reputable science there — those denier folks are crazy!

    Ah, a good old strawman argument.

    First, you should show the relevance of the examples you bring up.

    But, obviously, you cannot, so you have not bothered to try. Do you expect anyone to be convinced by your breathtaking inanity?

    Just wait a few years and we’ll see who’s right…

    No need. AGW is as close to proven as that (for example) the Earth orbits the sun. 20 years ago, your comments would have been reasonable. The data accumulated in that time renders the AGW conclusion firmly-supported and convincing. If you are not convinced, then you have been duped by the naysayers. There is no evidence against AGW and the arguments I have seen arrayed against it are all hollow.

    No denial here — the Earth warms and cools.

    But what is relevant is that Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable during the rise of human civilisation. And it is our civilisation and its infrastructure that are at risk from the consequences of GW. Plus, AGW is likely to accelerate the rate of extinction of a wide variety of species.

    What is not relevant to the 21st century and the debate over AGW is how the Earth’s climate has changed over the timescale of millions of years. Sure, it has been hotter than now. Substantially so (in, IIUC, the Carboniferous and Jurassic periods). But what matters is (1) that there was no human race and its accompanying civilisation, and (2) those changes in climate took place over many thousands of years. What we are seeing now is significant warming over the timescale of 1 century.

    And don’t forget, the polar ice caps haven’t been around for the majority of time Earth has been around.

    Irrelevant.

    It’s just that eating vegan and driving a Prius won’t make a bit of difference.

    Well this is debateable. But only for these two specific examples. Switching to an electricity supplier that uses renewable energy sources (for example) can make a difference. Individually, it is a small difference, but if we can make these changes widespread, we can make enough difference t olimit the amount of warming that occurs. The trouble is that the time to act was 15 years ago.

    I’m going to go enjoy a steak and guzzle some gasoline in my V-8!

    Here in England we have a word for people like you, but I shan’t put it in this comment because that would force Phil to delete my post.

  90. Nigel Depledge

    George (73) said:

    On the contrary #71 Steve, science is on my side. Your point so illogically stated:

    Yes, but neither was mankind, with a huge dependency on the climate being ‘just right’ like it is now – the only way we can even attempt to feed 7 billion people, and counting. And with no Antarctic ice cap (or Greenland), sea levels would be 60 -75m higher than at present. Hope you didn’t forget your rubber ducky, George.

    OK — so it was warmer before, but now *with 7 billion* people Earth may *just* catch up to how warm it was before people… er, OK.

    You’d better hope it doesn’t. Or do you think Louisiana, Florida and some pretty big chunks of the US’s Eastern Seaboard would look better underwater?

    I guess those dinosaurs must have had a lot of Edsels.

    No. But there was some very substantial volcanic activity (thousands of times as much as we see today) at several episodes in Earth’s history. Google “Deccan Traps”, for example.

    I think the Earth has a lot more resiliency than you think. Those wacky forests in Sibera sure do soak up a lot of that CO2, and those algae help a lot too. The Earth is a lot bigger, tougher, and will be around a lot longer than you or I.

    And this is all pretty much irrelevant. Beyond a certain CO2 concentration (I cannot recall the exact figure, but we are quite close to it now), plant growth actually decreases. Plant biochemistry is rather more complex than CO2 + water => sugar + oxygen.

    One Earthquake will do a human in — 7 billion organisms of any kind on the planet are just so many temporary lodgers.

    Obviously, we’re all here temporarily, but that is not relevant. If you are a USAian, you are lucky enough to live in a country that has never endured the threat of invasion by a foreign power. The closest anyone came was Pearl Harbour. You are also lucky enough to live in a country where food is plentiful and in reliable supply.

    Some of the most likely consequences of AGW (depending on exactly how much warming occurs) will be:
    (1) Widespread famine;
    (2) Loss of some of the richest farmland in the world (either to rising sea level or to long-term drought);
    (3) Loss of some of the most densly-inhabited land in the world (including Manhatten, New Orleans, London, Rotterdam and about half of Bangladesh) to rising sea levels;
    (4) Altered rainfall patterns leading to droughts and floods in patterns that are hard to predict;
    (5) Mass migration of people whose homes or farmland has become unuseable;
    (6) Wars over water supplies, and perhaps over refugees too.

    Are you saying that you simply don’t care about all the human suffering that is likely to be engendered by AGW as long as you still have your safe, cosy little existence? What are you, a psychopath?

  91. Nigel Depledge

    George (31) said:

    I’m a scientist

    On the basis of your subsequent posts, you have shown yourself to be either the world’s worst scientist or a liar.

  92. Ron1

    @92 Nigel Depledge

    In a nutshell, there it is, the whole anti-AGW argument exposed – bad science and liars.

    Cheers

  93. Microblogger

    If congress hasn’t legislated laws against global warming, it can’t be that bad.

  94. ND

    George,

    You say you’re a scientist, what is your field? Your credibility is in question given the flawed and unbecoming-of-a-scientist manner of your arguments.

  95. @85 Nigel Depledge: Bovine egesta!
    I love it. That’s a new one on me (er, well, hopefully not ON me)

    Second, the isotope ratios of the CO2 in the atmosphere indicate that the bulk of the additional CO2 comes from fossil sources. And that points the finger squarely at human activity.

    This bears repeating! I think some readers may gloss over it because they don’t see exactly how isotope ratios are such a smoking gun.

    Briefly, for the edification of the fence-sitters: All carbon is not created equal! Carbon comes in several isotopes – C12, C13 and C14. C12 makes up most carbon on Earth, with C13 making up most of the remainder. Both are stable (they don’t decay). Carbon-14, on the other hand, is generated in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms. C14 does decay, and it has a half-life of about 5,700 years. This is the basis for carbon-14 dating: since this carbon is created in small and constant quantities, and decays at a known rate, the amount of carbon-14 in a sample of plant or animal tissue call tell you when it died (as it has stopped taking up carbon-14 at that point).
    Fossil carbon, as it’s been hidden away underground for many millions of years, contains practically no carbon-14. Scientists can look at the percentage of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that contain C14. What they find is that even as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the percentage of CO2 molecules containing carbon-14 is falling. This is empirical evidence that fossil carbon is “diluting” the “surface” carbon that is a part of the natural carbon cycle (that is, taken up and exhaled by animals, released during decomposition, etc).

  96. amphiox

    A word on the idea of a technology solution: this is a truism. Technology and innovation has ALWAYS been an integral part of the solution to our environment related (ie basically everything) challenges, from the earliest moments when we qualified to the appellation of “human”.

    It is, indeed, our “schtick” as a species. Without our technology we are nothing more than bags of squishy meat, with a giant collection of nutritious fat inside the skull.

    Technology and innovation has always solved our problems in the past, and will continue to for all our problems in the future.

    Until the day it doesn’t. And that will be the day that the Homo genus goes extinct.

  97. @92 Nigel DePledge:

    George (31) said:
    I’m a scientist

    On the basis of your subsequent posts, you have shown yourself to be either the world’s worst scientist or a liar.

    Perhaps he’s one of these guys. :D

  98. @96 amphiox: It is, indeed, our “schtick” as a species. Without our technology we are nothing more than bags of squishy meat, with a giant collection of nutritious fat inside the skull.

    Or as the denizens of Velara III would say, “ugly bags of mostly water.” :D
    Oh spag, I’m such a geek.

    Technology and innovation has always solved our problems in the past, and will continue to for all our problems in the future.

    This cubed. We can’t afford to become luddites now. If anything, there are too many of us. Our reliance on fossil fuel energy didn’t come from the technological side of our nature, but from simple economy and complacency.

  99. TheBlackCat

    @ Joseph G: We can tell even more specifically than that. Not only does C14 decay over time, but plants selectively uptake C12 over C13 and C14. So by measuring the carbon isotope ratios we can say that the carbon being added to the atmosphere is both old and plant-derived (chemosynthetic organisms, like sulfur-eating bacteria, also selectively use C12).

    For example, new biological sources of carbon (e.g. land use changes) would have similar amounts of C12 but would have more C14. Old, non-biological sources of carbon (e.g. volcanoes) would have little or no C14 but more C13. New, non-biological sources of carbon (e.g. ocean circulation changes) would have more C13 and C14.

    But there is only one known source of the ancient, biologically-derived carbon that is now appearing in the atmosphere, and that is fossil fuels.

  100. No smoke and mirrors

    Yes, OBVIOUSLY I am a denier, when I agree with scientists that are not funded by big oil or any other sinister organization. So if I am a denier, do you deny the following video? “We live in the coldest period of the last 10.000 years” , says glaciologist, Jørgen Peder Steffensen who takes us back in time to the Grenland icecores and reveals the secrets from the past. http://vimeo.com/14366077

  101. TheBlackCat

    @ No smoke and mirrors: right, because of course you can take records from a single site on a single island and immediately extrapolate that to every point on the globe.

  102. @101 TheBlackCat: @ Joseph G: We can tell even more specifically than that. Not only does C14 decay over time, but plants selectively uptake C12 over C13 and C14. So by measuring the carbon isotope ratios we can say that the carbon being added to the atmosphere is both old and plant-derived (chemosynthetic organisms, like sulfur-eating bacteria, also selectively use C12).
    For example, new biological sources of carbon (e.g. land use changes) would have similar amounts of C12 but would have more C14. Old, non-biological sources of carbon (e.g. volcanoes) would have little or no C14 but more C13. New, non-biological sources of carbon (e.g. ocean circulation changes) would have more C13 and C14.
    But there is only one known source of the ancient, biologically-derived carbon that is now appearing in the atmosphere, and that is fossil fuels.

    Cool!! I learned something today :)

  103. Denialist George states:

    “science is on my side”

    I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or get right pissed off at this odious falsehood.

  104. tim Rowledge

    Antelopes and birds don’t have to respect national boundaries. When conditions change, they can simply move. Humans don’t have that luxury

    That depends upon a number of factors including geophysical, size of population and amount of nuclear weapons they can get hold of. Postulate the central Americas/Mexico region becoming uncomfortable – a lot of people would have reason to move north into the US. Would they be welcomed in Arizona/Texas? Recent history suggests not. How about USA residents needing to move north into Canada? US has a lot more nukes than Canada.
    It won’t be pretty. Those that can’t move will suffer and likely die. Those that can move will likely result in suffering and death as well.

    I think I’m moving back to Mars.

  105. @95. Microblogger : ” If congress hasn’t legislated laws against global warming, it can’t be that bad.”

    Far as I know there are no laws against comet and asteroid impacts or supernovae going off next door to us either. ;-)

    (Those like HIRGO could be Mass Extinction causing events. Go figure. )

    @89, 90. & # 92. Nigel Depledge : Well said & seconded by me. :-)

  106. Deneb

    The world is warming up.

    However, reading these comments points out an interesting trend. The people who believe in climate change have the same mentality as the climate deniers, and act the same way. We humans are really funny.

    Congrats on looking as foolish as everybody else.

  107. No smoke and mirrors

    @TheBlackCat, if it is okay for to make a big deal out of something like “ice loss in Iceland” and name it as irrefutable evidence for warming, why is not the same logic accepted in this case? You guys and gals don’t accept any other views or proof (even by top scientists doing real measurements in the real world) other than by those that agree with your own doctrine.
    BTW, it is not only this one guy taking measurements that point to the same results. Russians have found the same in results in Antarctica, the Chinese recently concluded the same, and so have the guys in Finland who have also concluded the same. But I guess they are not acceptable scientists? Nooooo, you choose to believe guys like James Hansen who massage data, like the temperatures in Reykjavik to fit his political scare-strategy, read it for yourself: http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/hansen-warming-things-up-in-reykjavik/ This is not science and sadly not the only example of what can only be called fraud. I dare you guys to do research and find out for yourself.

    I hate to say it, but it is you guys who are in complete and absolute denial, believing blindly in computer models, AGW scaremongers, cuddly polar bears going extinct and unicorns. You guys are the embodiment (you too Phil) of “scientific” hypocrisy.

  108. Messier Tidy Upper

    @56. Jimbob Says:

    In the author’s first point, there’s a big leap from “the Earth is warming up” straight to “humans are why”. These are two entirely different conclusions, each with their own scientific rationale. The second of these conclusions is false.

    No it isn’t.

    Click on the link in my name :

    The human fingerprint in global warming is evident in multiple lines of empirical evidence – in satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, in surface measurements of downward infrared radiation, in the cooling stratosphere and other metrics. – Skeptical Science, ‘The human fingerprint in global warming’, John Cook.

    Just for starters

    Educate yourself a little. Do some research using proper climatological sources not Climate Denier ones.

    The author’s remaining four points address propaganda and money, both which fuel the machinery of politics, not science. And since the alarmist has a political agenda, the “science” is really just for show.

    Oh gee, I guess there’s no political agenda in anything the climate contrarians argue is there? Oh wait. :roll:

    If you claim the science is “for show” then you need to show us how its wrong. You are making an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to back it up. If you can’t do this, then you lose. It’s that simple.

  109. MartinM

    Yes, OBVIOUSLY I am a denier

    Indeed.

  110. TheBlackCat

    @ Joseph G : Pretty cool, huh? Actually different types of plants (or rather different photosynthetic pathways) take up slightly different proportions of the 3 isotopes (although they are all skewed towards C12). I don’t know if the isotope measurements from the atmosphere are sensitive enough to isolate this factor, but they can certainly tell plant-derived from non-plant-derived sources.

    Also keep in mind that animals and fungi get their carbon from plants, so fossil fuels derived from organisms that consume plants will also have the skewed isotope ratios.

  111. If there were real consequences for condemning billions of children to a CO2 death, you all wouldn’t be shooting your mouths off like this.
    Obama knows that our “Iraq War” was “Climate Change Crisis” and it made fear mongering neocons out of all of us. CO2 fear wasn’t about a changing climate, it was about CONTROLLING a changing climate by taxing the air we breathe with bank funded and corporate run CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS ruled by politicians. Climate change scientists are to science now what pesticide and chemical scientists were to environmentalism and surely history will call climate blame a consultant’s wet dream.
    REAL planet lovers are happy, not disappointed the crisis was just a tragic exaggeration after all.

  112. Steve Metzler

    @No smoke and mirrors (#110)

    Anyone can take a temperature record (adjusted or unadjusted) for a single location, in this case Reykjavik, and use it to ‘prove’ that there is no global warming. Indeed, in some locations the temps show a recent slow but steady decline. But that’s called ‘cherry picking’.

    Did it ever occur to you that localised temperatures are adjusted for good reason, not just on a whim? When an urban location warms up over the years, the inclination is to blame it on the UHI effect. But lo and behold, it somehow always turns out that surrounding places in the vicinity, just a few tens of miles away but way up in the mountains (for instance) where not a soul lives, experience an identical rise in temps over the same period. It’s called an ‘anomaly’, and this is what climatologists deal with – not absolutes. You should read about it sometime.

    Let me just hazard a wild guess: the BEST re-analysis, which used unadjusted station data and found that global average land temperatures have increased by about 0.9C in just 60 years… that work is fraudulent too, in your estimation?

    Science, from a contrarian standpoint, apparently works quite well for figuring out what goes on in the world around us, in all cases with the exception of AGW. In that case, 98% of practicing climatologists are complete bumbling idiots who can’t even walk and chew gum at the same time, and all the armchair scientists out there know better. Yeah, right.

    @mememine69 (#114)

    It gets pretty ugly around here when you forget to take your meds.

  113. Mr. Dave

    Sigh – another attack on us ‘deniers’, a misnomer for thinking skeptics that don’t side up. Speaking for me, I’m not a creationist, nor an antivaxer, moon hoaxer or member of any group that would impugn my intelligence. I simply don’t know and have plenty of time to find out for myself, rather than join the faculty lounge and Google Galileos. If you want to talk the loudest and the longest, go for it. That in itself speaks volumes.

  114. MartinM

    Sigh – another attack on us ‘deniers’, a misnomer for thinking skeptics that don’t side up.

    No, it isn’t. It’s a term for people who have already decided that global warming isn’t happening/manmade/a problem/all of the above, and to hell with the evidence.; the exact opposite of scepticism.

  115. MartinM

    It’s funny how people who complain about GISS ‘massaging the data’ never point at places like Tokyo, where said ‘massaging’ substantially reduced the observed warming trend. It’s almost as if they don’t know what the hell they’re raving about.

  116. @MartinM : Yes, it is rather isn’t it? ;-)

    Odd how the BEST study was actually slightly hotter and more dramatic than the GISS result too. (Click on my name if you don’t know what I’m referring to here.)

    @26. shunt1 :

    Yes dear! A wise husband soon learns what to say…

    Out of sheer morbid curiosity – what do marital relations have to do with anything, Shunt1? :roll:

    Hey, has anyone identified the weather station responsible for that hot spot over Russia yet? It would be interesting to see what the actual raw data being reported was. Oh well, nobody dares to ask simple questions anymore.

    Got a simple question? Go ahead and ask it.

    What raw data exactly are you talking about here?

    I recall hearing in a few places that Russia has experienced some pretty extreme droughts, heatwaves (for them anyhow!) and forest fires in recent years.

    I’m guessing those aren’t the anomalies you are referring to though?

    @116. Mr. Dave Says:

    Sigh – another attack on us ‘deniers’, a misnomer for thinking skeptics that don’t side up. Speaking for me, I’m not a creationist, nor an antivaxer, moon hoaxer or member of any group that would impugn my intelligence.

    Bzzzzt! Wrong. You’ve just self-identified yourself as a ‘denier’ presumably inthsicontext referringto climate contrarian. That is a group that, I’d say, impugns our intelligence by continually advancing stale old canards that have been effectively debunked repeatedly and whose case has been examined and found wanting.

    You want to show your intelligence – start by putting forward an actual case backed by good evidence as to why you think as you apparently do.

  117. Mr. Dave

    Bzzzt! Wrong back at ya. I’ve advanced no canards, stale or otherwise. Keep ridiculing people with your block quotes followed by smarmy remarks if you want to show your intelligence.

  118. Steve Metzler

    @Mr. Dave (#120)

    I’ve advanced no canards, stale or otherwise.

    In fact, there is no substance to your original post whatsoever. You’re dismissing Phil’s article, but you can’t be bothered to explain why you don’t agree with it. Your post amounts to nothing more than tone trolling.

  119. Knative

    Are these all the same people or what? Because you guys seem to shut them down pretty easily, yet they keep on trucking on. Do they understand that their arguments are stupid and still use them, or do they just ignore reality?
    This isn’t really that hard to figure out either. That cows fart more methane thing was easily explained, and yet, that poster will still trot out that argument again and again.

  120. @124 Knative: In a way, they’re a lost cause. The people we’re trying to convince with the facts are those who are on the fence, not the deniers themselves. If they were persuaded by hard evidence, they wouldn’t be deniers. So it really doesn’t matter how many times their arguments are debunked, they’ll keep (t)rollin’ along.

  121. Beyonder

    I think the recent release from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit clears up all the ‘science’ from the so called global warmists. Time to face the facts, the earth is just not warming up. 30000 sensors, no upward trend, no statistical upward trend in fact the temperature has gone down. These are facts, not based on flawed computer models. I can hear the Warmists now, ‘the climate is too complex to predict, maybe we should have factored in the sun…etc. Maybe the little blip known as man is truly not that significant.
    http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/United-Kingdom-Meteorology-Office-declares-Earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years

  122. @127 Beyonder: Ah yes, let’s listen to the uninformed opinion of some guy from channel 5 who’s obviously incapable of interpreting data. You have to go to primary sources (and find people who know how to actually read them). Interesting how he quotes people out of context, such as Dr. Judith Curry. Read up on those folks and you’ll find that none of them have any doubt that warming is (still) occurring.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »