Let those global warming dollars flow

By Phil Plait | September 20, 2012 11:00 am

One of the weirdest (and by that I mean most ridiculous) claims I’ve heard from global warming deniers is the idea that somehow there is a cabal of scientists making up all the information we see about climate change.

First, scientists aren’t very good at that sort of collusion. As Ben Franklin said, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying. And those who do tend to be caught by the peer-review process.

Anyway, ignoring the idea that tens of thousands of scientists are playing a Jedi mind trick on the rest of us without a single one of them betraying the secret (and no, Climategate and its sequel don’t count since that was all trumped up smoke and mirrors by the denier crowd), the real reason this claim is ludicrous is because of its supernova-bright irony: a lot of the deniers can be traced to having fossil fuel funding.

Or, as this infographic from Occupy Posters puts it so succinctly:

Mind you, this isn’t supposed to be evidence that global warming deniers are paid frauds. It’s simply using Occam’s Razor, asking which makes more sense. Taken that way, it just shows the idea that scientists are on the wrong side of this is really silly.

Incidentally, guess who’s funding Mitt Romney’s campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Anyone? Bueller?

With the arctic melting earlier and deeper every year, with temperatures rising, with extreme weather more common, with glaciers retreating, with sea level rising, with droughts ravaging the US, reality is diverging more and more from the claims of the deniers.


Related Posts:

Case closed: “Climategate” was manufactured
Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.
A case study of the tactics of climate change denial, in which I am the target

Comments (182)

  1. 1984, Winston Smith: [reads from Goldstein’s book] “In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.”

    The essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.

  2. SLC

    Just today, there was another report about the disappearance of Arctic Ice. Exp0erts predict that Arctic ice will disappear during the summer months in 4 years.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/09/20/arctic-sea-ice-melt-breaks-historic-records

  3. Chris

    But what you are forgetting is that scientists are smart so they could pull this off. They just built a giant weather machine to make their “predictions” true. Look at business leaders. Take for example, Mitt Romney, does anyone think he is smart enough to do this?

  4. Daffy

    Mitt Romney sent thousands of American jobs overseas, and yet still is regarded by many as an American job creator. Yeah, he’s smart enough.

  5. Lab Rat Jason

    Hey Phil:

    So you obviously passionate about the problem, but I don’t see you posting much in the way of solutions… I’d like to see more on that.

  6. Chip

    Oh, my goodness. I come here to see awesome astronomy info – and get this crap again. Phil, how about the HUGE taxes proposed (CAP and TRADE, anyone? My fraking electric bill, anyone??) to stop CO2 (oh horrible, horrible gas!) from rising? Where do those taxes go? Follow THAT money trail, please.

  7. Mike

    It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy as this writer likes to claim. I have heard the same claims from the left of a right wing conspiracy. No one can deny it is in a scientists best interest to continue producing science that gets hem additional government funds. The first time a climatologist stands against his piers and raises arguments is the time they lose money. Scientist like all people are motivated by money. Funny you are more apt to believe corporations use money to get what they want but you honestly believe scientists with huge funding from environmental groups will come to some other answer. Hey writer don’t be a sheep.

  8. Chris

    Welcome trolls. How have you been?

  9. jasonB

    “their obscene profits”? What is obscene? Perhaps the fact that Exxon makes about $0.02 profit per gallon. While the average that a state takes in taxes per gallon is $0.48. Some more some less.

    That’s quite a disparity considering one has find, drill, refine, transport, and distribute while the other merely takes a cut.

    Wow Phil, they’re contributing to Romney, next thing you know we’ll find out that Solyndra head honchos were money bundlers for Obama. Billions more of OUR money was given out to other of his bundlers for “green” jobs. Oh and how many of those companies have failed?

    OWS? You mean the folks that decry corporations and run around in Levis and play on their Mac-books all day?

    Oh Hey, how is Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn going? Or with Ball up in Canada? Ha.

  10. Pete Jackson

    @7 jasonB: The states spend their cut building the roads that the vehicles drive on. Without roads, no oil would be consumed, and the oil companies would go broke.

  11. The poles are not melting, there is simply a huge demand for icecubes.

  12. Chris

    @8 Pete Jackson
    See I knew the Republicans were on the side of the environment. By blocking those infrastructure bills they guarantee the roads and bridges fall apart meaning people won’t drive and release CO2. Global warming solved. QED.

  13. samsam von virginia

    If we drastically reduce carbon emissions, the economy WILL suffer. Lots of folks seem to think that’s OK since the alternative is so bad.

    How about this: we fuel our economy to work at its best, so there is sufficient financial resources to develop the alternative energy sources. Fusion already does not get nearly enough funding… why squash our chances of developing a very good alternative?

  14. philippe

    @ jasonB So you’ve made your mind. You’re at the point where no logical argument will make you change your opinion.

  15. JC

    Dear jasonB :

    It’s quite possible to be against corporate abuse and excessive corporate influence in our political system without being against corporations, or their products, themselves.

    For some reason, however, a certain segment of the population seems incapable of making that distinction.

  16. ChazInMT

    Again I say, OK! We F’d up the atmosphere and now it’s warmer….did ya ever consider the chart showing Earths temperature over the last 500,000 years? Where is the temperature “Normally” when we look at that? Well by Golly, Its a Freakin Ice Age!!

    So, if we had to choose, would we rather have the Earth be “too warm”? Or….we could let it run its natural course and have another Ice Age for the next 70-80 thousand years. I suppose either way it sucks to be us, but and Ice Age would shrink the population to 500 million or less quick. Talk about a frozen version of Hades.

    Really, what you are saying is, “We need to do is try and keep temperatures where they were in 1955 or so.” Like we can control it or something, 500,000 year chart be darned.

    To quote Sponge Bob. “Good Luck With That!”

  17. Michael Weir

    “Mom’s gonna fix it all soon.
    Mom’s comin’ round to put it back the way it ought to be.”

    – Tool

  18. TheBlackCat

    @ ChazInMT: you are talking about changes that will happen hundreds, if not thousands, of years in the future. Further, the warming we are looking at is much more severe than the cooling during the ice age.

  19. “If we drastically reduce carbon emissions, the economy WILL suffer. ”

    Yes, but not very much: “the near-universal view of economists that the cost of stabilising the global climate will be of the order of 1 per cent of income”

    http://johnquiggin.com/2012/09/20/climate-and-catastrophe/

    There’s no need to be so scared of taxes.

  20. That´s the funny thing about airplanes. It´s kind of a double edged sword. They polute and thus warming things up and yet they also make a nice white blancket reflecting that horrible heat of the sun.
    Oh, Damocles…

  21. TSC

    Yep. Trolls aplenty, here. I cannot for the life of me fathom how a scientific issue ever became so politicized. …well, no, I guess I can. There’s gads of money involved. It pains me.

    What I find especially astounding is that the rhetoric seems to be shifting from “ain’t no global warming!” and “global warming is not caused by humans!” to “global warming sure is a good thing after all!” You can even see it in this comment thread – I’m looking at you, ChazInMT…

  22. Chris

    @14 ChazInMT
    Well let’s just look at what happens when it gets too warm. Droughts, heat waves, species extinction, food shortages, rising seas, more powerful storms…

    Ice Age would shrink the population to 500 million or less quick

    Big difference between global warming and an ice age. An ice age takes thousands of years to come about. Global warming is happening in less than a century. If we had thousands of years we could adapt, but we don’t. It’s happening now. And in the past when the globe was warmer, these did not occur in a few decades, they were over thousands of years.

  23. yui

    But… but… Profits are a good thing. Good things happen to good people. So those oil company folks must be very good people. We know that good people are not liars. Therefore it has to be the scientists at fault here, because we know all scientists are evilutionists and _can_ lie.

    I mean really. You thought you could fool us with your liberal elitist logic?

    [/sarcasm]

  24. TheBlackCat

    “their obscene profits”? What is obscene? Perhaps the fact that Exxon makes about $0.02 profit per gallon. While the average that a state takes in taxes per gallon is $0.48. Some more some less.

    That’s quite a disparity considering one has find, drill, refine, transport, and distribute while the other merely takes a cut.

    Nice try, but considering that in 2011 Exxon alone produces nearly 5 billion barrels a day means that profit per gallon adds up fast. In 2011 it added up to over $40 billion in profit for the company. Yes profit, after taking out all their expenses, taxes, etc. So no, its not “quite a disparity”.

    Exxon alone had a total revenue of $125.3 billion (that is over a 30% profit margin). By comparison the department of energy had a budget of less then $30 billion. The entire requested U.S. science budget was about $140 billion, so just $15 billion more than the profits of one oil company (the largest, granted).

    So yes, I would say their profits are pretty obscene when compared to science research in the U.S., not to mention climate research alone.

  25. Ray

    @19 Black Cat,

    5 billion barrels a day? Might wanna take another stab at that.

  26. I love how the usual suspects come storming over to completely miss the point of the infographic.

    Say what you want about greenhouse gas emissions and anthropic climate change, but the point was that the “OMG teh Conspiracy!” blather is absurd. Occam’s Razor alone suggests that if the vast majority of those seriously studying the climate say that a change is happening, then it is happening.

    It does not comment on any of the other issues being raised here. (Though it’s suggestive that refuting the conspiracy theory brings the “drill baby drill” crowd out howling…)

    — Steve

  27. AJ

    I think both sides of the diagram are wrong. My opinion is that “alarmist” scientists could be biased by group-think and grant money. Null results reduce your expected future funding. “Deniers” could be biased as solutions offend their libertarian values.

    Not that anyone cares, but here are my thoughts on your list:

    — arctic melting earlier and deeper every year
    – Agreed, but spotty data for pre-satellite era.

    — with temperatures rising
    – Agreed. Some uncertainty as to attribution and differences between satellite vs. surface measurement trends.

    — with extreme weather more common
    – Agreed with respect to shifting of the mean. Disagree with respect to increasing standard deviation. Dr. Hansen’s recent paper is vulnerable to selection bias. Continuous line plots of mean and s.d. should have been provided for all 11yr moving periods. Standard deviation should have been calculated on detrended anomolies of each individual period.

    — with glaciers retreating
    – Agreed, but spotty data for pre-satellite era.

    — with sea level rising
    – Agreed, but acceleration is not unambiguous.

    — with droughts ravaging the US
    – Agreed, but consistent with high AMO and low PDO.

    That said, I believe that with the forcing accelerating, all of the items in your list should also accelerate (except temperature variability). How far and how fast? I don’t think anyone knows.

  28. TheBlackCat

    @ Ray: Sorry, you are right, that should have been million not billion.

  29. Chris

    @19 TheBlackCat
    Not to mention the billions in subsidies and tax breaks the US government gives the oil companies.

  30. TheBlackCat

    My opinion is that “alarmist” scientists could be biased by group-think and grant money. Null results reduce your expected future funding.

    Then you don’t know how grant money works. I’ll give you a hint: there isn’t much money in agreeing with everyone else. In order to get a grant you need to say something different. Showing that global warming is not happening would be so radically different that you would be guaranteed top placement in your pick of the most prestigious journals in the world and would drastically increase your funding prospects in the future.

    “Deniers” could be biased as solutions offend their libertarian values.

    The right side isn’t a guess, it is thoroughly documented that major oil and automotive companies are sending huge sums of money to denialist groups. They have even admitted it.

    That said, I believe that with the forcing accelerating, all of the items in your list should also accelerate (except temperature variability). How far and how fast? I don’t think anyone knows.

    We don’t know for certain, but considering that so far things are either on the worse-case scenario side or even worse than our worst predictions, I don’t think that is something to feel reassured about.

  31. Lab Rat Jason

    I’d like to distance myself from the tinfoil hat group… and I’m not a troll either. I’m deadly serious. I would classify myself as a “former global warming denyer”, and Phil and this blog are singlehandedly responsible for changing my perspective. I have seen enough evidence now to believe that things really are warming up.

    However, I’m still calling him out: I want to see viable alternatives to the way we live today.

    I’m not willing to accept the usual crap solutions like “ride a bike to work” because it is unrealistic to nearly all of the population. I bike to work a couple of times a week in spring and fall, but 100+ summers and freezing snow and sleet winters prevent me from fully abandoning my car. But I consider myself in a somewhat unusual situation as nearly all of my friends and family work at least 15-20 miles from their place of employment. Nearly all of the “reverse global warming” strategies I hear about sound great on paper but in practice, they are all rediculous.

    …Real solutions please…

  32. Fizz

    Yes, the whole notion of a vast conspiracy is preposterous. That said, people who accept HIGW should also not assume that anyone who disagrees is automatically a Republican or a puppet of Big Oil. It is possible to disagree in good conscious.

    Also, i don’t think Romney disagrees with the notion of HIGW. Scientific American had a questionnaire answered by both Romney and Obama. On global warming, Romney acknowledged that Earth is warming and humans are at least partly to blame. But he is concerned about the lack of consensus on the extent and severity of the risk. Plus, this is the guy who introduced carbon cap and trade in MA.

    Please don’t flame me because you think i’m a Romney supporter. I’m not. There are plenty of other reasons to not vote for him. Nor am i saying you should vote for Obama. I’m just saying that you can’t always spot a denier or follower based on a few things like political party or funding source. We need to be more discerning than that.

  33. Daniel J. Andrews

    In regards to that graphic, I’m not sure I’d use the word “bribe”. Some are out and out lying for ideological reasons, some for the money, but some are genuinely confused and are happy to spread misinformation without realizing it. Never underestimate the power of people to act against their own best interest and for the interest of a powerful lobby even if they aren’t receiving funds for it.

    The right side isn’t a guess, it is thoroughly documented that major oil and automotive companies are sending huge sums of money to denialist groups. They have even admitted it.

    And some have said they’ll stop funding denier groups too. But at least one of them was still doing it despite their promise.

    My opinion is that “alarmist” scientists could be biased by group-think and grant money. Null results reduce your expected future funding.

    May I gently politely suggest your opinion isn’t based on any real knowledge. This isn’t some isolated group swayed by group-think. You have scientists from every developed and even developing countries around the world, numerous conflicting ideologies political and otherwise, who knows how many different disciplines looking at different aspects. All these differences and people are still coming to the same conclusions–the globe is warming, and we’re responsible.

    Keep in mind that scientists in particular are very independent-minded thinkers, even contrary a lot of the time, and you’ll have better luck herding three-legged cats than getting scientists world-wide to come to the same conclusion with anything less than overwhelming mountains of steadily accumulating evidence from multiple disciplines.

    And as pointed out already, the way forward in science is not to pat each other on the back and agree, but to try and tear down what is already there. Each scientists wants to be the one to discover something new and overturn the reigning paradigm. Imagine if you were the one to overturn the theory of evolution—your name would be recited alongside Newton and Einstein.

    If global warming rested on mediocre inconclusive evidence, there’d be a stampede of scientists vying to be the first to disprove it and demonstrate what is really happening instead. That’s where the money and fame would be, and not in agreeing with each other for the sake of the status quo.

  34. No smoke and mirrors

    How convenient for the climate religionists to say that the Arctic is melting and not talk about the HUGE elephant in the room… yes, I am talking about the Antarctic. Melting or at record high? Oh, snap! And before claiming that there are more extreme weather events, you could provide with ONE single shred of evidence to testify changes compared to at least 200 years ago. Oh, that’s right, there is no evidence. Once I enjoyed reading this blog for the “space” stuff, but now it’s just a trumpet for Phil’s climate religion. Bookmark deleted.

  35. Jake

    @#25

    Don’t forget that your funding prospects would rather dramatically increase if you could prove that global warming was not happening with rather convincing evidence. Not only would you have the scientific prestige thing going for you, but you would also have tons of oil companies throwing money at you.

    But I suppose it doesn’t really matter, because I cannot imagine anyone proving beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is a hoax. No, the much more likely scenario is that evidence of anthropogenic warming continues to mount up and deniers continue to ignore it.

    As the rabble would say a few centuries ago”… it’s a hoax! The Earth is the center of the universe…”

  36. TheBlackCat

    And some have said they’ll stop funding denier groups too. But at least one of them was still doing it despite their promise.

    Has any actually said they will stop funding all such groups? I recall some claiming they would stop funding a few specific groups, but I don’t recall hearing any say they would not fund any such group.

  37. TheBlackCat

    How convenient for the climate religionists to say that the Arctic is melting and not talk about the HUGE elephant in the room… yes, I am talking about the Antarctic. Melting or at record high?

    *sigh* how many times do we have to go through this? The antarctic ice is largely determined by precipitation, which due to global warming is increasing in the area. There is a lot of melting happening in the antarctic, but it is offset by increased snowfall.

    Nevertheless, many areas of the antarctic are melting and melting quickly.

    None of this is a surprise, it is exactly what climatologists expected. Only a denialist could make a confirmed prediction of AGW somehow be evidence against AGW.

  38. Wzrd1

    Well, we *ARE* still coming out of the last ice age.
    I’d do my part more and lower my CO2 contribution, but I’m stuck driving my car, as my wooly mammoth is in the shop. ;)

    @Uncle Al #1, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
    Years ago, it was a warning. Today, it’s being used as an instruction manual. :/

  39. Jose

    Annnd while it’s interesting science, it’s not practical to convert everyone to electric cars, and power plants to solar and wind. It’s not. Going. To. Happen. So you might as well get used to one of two options. Move back to energy usage from the 1800s, or higher temperatures.

    Which do you think our society will choose?

  40. jasonB

    @JC. Its like Jeffrey Immelt (head of GE) heading Obama’s job council. 5 billion in ‘obscene’ profits and GE paid no taxes last year. Don’t forget, that Prez O wanted Corzine to be the Sec of Treasury, before the tax cheat Geitner. All fat cat Wall Streeters. I just find it very funny, the selective outrage by OWS, directed at Republicans.

    @Pete Jackson via TheBlack Cat’s numbers. Based on those numbers you’d think with all of the taxes collected (not to mention tolls and other revenue sources) the streets would be paved with gold. But 8 guys leaning on shovels while one digs might account for that not happening.

  41. Unsettled Scientist

    AJ bandies about the commonly asserted nonsense that without showing results that indicate global warming climate scientists would be unable to get funding. This makes no sense, they were getting plenty of funding before all this. Why? Because it is useful to study and understand our climate regardless of global warming. That we happened to discover anthropogenic global warming is a side effect of studying the climate for other reasons for centuries. If AGW didn’t exist, we’d still want to fund studies of the climate to better predict storms, droughts, excessive rainfall, ice storms, etc. It’s simply a logical fallacy that group think about AGW is required to get funding for science.

  42. @22 AJ: I think both sides of the diagram are wrong. My opinion is that “alarmist” scientists could be biased by group-think and grant money. Null results reduce your expected future funding. “Deniers” could be biased as solutions offend their libertarian values.

    Groupthink can indeed be a potential problem in any group, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that it’s a substantial factor in consensus on this issue (as opposed to extensive fossil fuel company funding motivating folks on the other side, which is a matter of record).
    Still, even if groupthink were a major factor here, I don’t see how grant money as a motivator necessarily follows. You say a “null result” reduces your future expected funding. Wouldn’t that then motivate scientists to look for novel results, that is, results that conflict with the AGW theory? That’s how you get attention in the scientific world, by showing conclusive evidence that the status quo thinking is wrong.

  43. Unsettled Scientist

    >I want to see viable alternatives to the way we live today.

    I recommend reading the IPCC Working Group III report. The IPCC is actually made of 3 different working groups, and the entire purpose of the third is to offer mitigation strategies. People who say solutions are never offered have never looked.

    http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/

  44. Chris

    @31 Lab Rat Jason
    I’m not willing to accept the usual crap solutions like “ride a bike to work”

    I live in Green Bay and don’t own a car. I bike to work and to shop all the time unless the weather is really bad then I take the bus. We should petition our leaders to improve public transportation so it is an option. When you are looking for a home, look for someplace close to your job. You can add solar panels to your roof, heck some companies will install them for free and you can buy the power from them. Install geothermal so you don’t have to burn natural gas to heat your house or use extra energy for air conditioning in the summer. Turn off light you aren’t using. Seriously how many garage and porch lights do we see down every block at night? Don’t shower or do laundry every day. Reduce your water consumption. Grow your own food. Don’t have kids, they are just going to eat up our natural resources. By the way, if you reduce your showering, the probability of having kids will decrease, especially if you ride your bike all the time.

    But if you are going to drive, don’t go so many places. Do all your shopping one day a week, then enjoy your time at home. Alone with no kids. It’s how I spend my nights.

  45. Nic

    I’m on your side Phil, I really am, and you’re right I know you are.
    But believe me when politicians in power get a whiff of extra tax $ because some policy is green, and a good fraction of the electorate _like_ green, and are correctly in my view in favour of it, certain taxes can get silly.

    An example. In the UK, where I am, there has been a proposal to increase tax on cars in some form (fuel duty, road duty, whatever) because in 2012 cars here are now more efficient than they used to be. I get 60MPG imperial, that’s about maybe 45 mp/US gallon roughly.
    But efficiency is dropping potential tax revenue. (But wasn’t tax supposed to drive efficiency?)

    And I have this efficient car exactly because my government wanted to reduce emissions and taxed fuel VERY heavily – you guys in the U.S really have no idea re fuel cost.

    But perhaps I’ll get taxed further anyway despite being more efficient, green, eco-friendly and all of that, because my government could not possibly allow tax revenue drop. Oh no.

    ‘Damn there are efficient cars! Sh_t! Didn’t expect that! Erm.. Tax wheels!’ You there! You there with the kid in the pram…

    Screw it. Give me my Ferrari back.

    (ok I don’t mean it, I’m _happy_ I’m burning less irreplaceable hydrocarbons, but it bugs me when politicians use it as an easy excuse to pile more and more tax on me)

    Sorry I am in a cynical mood today..
    Nic

  46. Global warming is real and manmade. The chart you posted is a classic false dichotomy.

    Unscientastic!

  47. Paul M

    “Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying”

    Is that why there’s so few scientist-politicians and so many lawyer-politicians?

  48. Lars

    However, I’m still calling him out: I want to see viable alternatives to the way we live today.

    How about you come up with viable alternatives to the way we live today? Plait is just pointing out the facts. Providing or not providing viable alternatives to the way we live today is irrelevant to the facts. Pointing out the facts doesn’t automatically oblige you to come up with viable alternatives to the way we live today. One step at a time. There’s still a long way to go before even the basic facts are accepted amongst many.

  49. Howie Feltersnatch

    Charlie, “false dichotomy” is a weird term for “insightful.”

  50. Paul

    How about we tax carbon instead of hard-working americans? I mean, if we want to disincentivize something, let’s pick pollution, not employment.

  51. Hal

    While I agree that global warming is real, we are causing it and we must address it, I found that infographic offputting. Starting with “obscene profits” and the implication that anyone who denies global warming does so because of oil money. But they’re ignoring the elephant in the room. Green energy has a *lot* of powerful monied players. In fact, some are the same players in the oil industry (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/big-oils-big-in-biofuels).

    It’s just not that simple. You don’t get to paint one side as the complete villains.

  52. TheBlackCat

    @ Charlie: “Global warming is real and manmade. The chart you posted is a classic false dichotomy.
    Phil isn’t the one who set up this dichotomy, the denialists did. Phil is simply pointing out that it doesn’t make any sense.

  53. Zeff

    Wow. 50 comments and an argument about Actual Solutions ™, but nobody has even mentioned nuclear energy. A pity.

  54. Lab Rat Jason

    @#48 Lars

    (Pro-Tip: when I say cost, don’t think in terms of just dollars)

    I’m a computer programmer… my skillset isn’t exactly going to solve this problem for the entire world.

    I can solve this problem on a personal level: I can ride to work (which I do when I can), I can take public transportation (which I don’t because a 2 hour commute to travel 5 miles is worse than just walking it), and I can do all these things suggested above: minimize driving by shopping all on one day, install solar, etc. But one person changing their behavior is only a fraction of a drop in the bucket for this problem. My personal change doesn’t mean anything if I’m the only one.

    On the other hand, Scientists whose job it is to understand this problem have identified the many causes, they have sounded the alarm, and we now understand that there is a problem. However, until someone brings a solution that is easy for the masses, it will never be adopted. Phil follows the people who understand this problem, so it stands to reason he knows where to find the information on the solution, and that’s all I’m asking for.

    Here’s my solution:

    Lets talk about evolutionary pressure for a minute: Whatever is the easiest way to exist and get ahead, is the choice most people will make. It’s an “inconvenient truth” I guess (lol). The masses are not going to just spend tens of thousands of dollars installing wind, solar and geothermal, because the upfront cost is way too high for most people, and the break even isn’t even in some people’s remaining lifespan.

    I’ll give you an example. My vehicle gets about 20mpg. Not great I know, but I own it. I don’t make payments. My total cost for fuel and service per month is about $150 – $200 depending on how often I visit my folks. Now how much is a new fuel efficient (hybrid maybe) vehicle? 20K? 30k? But assuming the same ammount of milage, it only cuts my fuel usage in half… so I’m saving myself $75-$100 a month, but I’m stuck under a $500/mo. payment for the next five years… I hope to hell my new car lasts me 30 years if I expect to break even. And before you point out that my current car isn’t going to last me another 30 years either, that may be true, but I can pick up another used car for $5k and make it last me 15 years… that’s what I did with this one. That’s why people are never going to change, because it isn’t economical. That’s just one simple example, but every solution proposed so far is encumbered by similar problems which is why people are choosing none of them. Nobody in my area is installing free solar, and even if they were, there are HOA covenants to contend with. Same goes for wind. On an individual level, this. problem. can. not. be. solved. If you find a solution in one instance (like changing HOA rules) you still have a dozen other reasons it won’t work, and besides, changing the HOA rules has only changed the situation for about a dozen people, hardly a worldwide solution.

    However, on a large scale it can. When scientists can make electric cars as cheap as gas ones, with a lifespan of 20 years rather than 6, that’s a start. When wind, solar, geothermal are all simple enough that individuals can do it themselves, or remote/out-of-sight enough that people stop worrying about the asthetics, and when cost per watt competes with coal, then people will naturally move to a greener solution. Finally, don’t ignore the psychological aspect of all of this. If people feel they are willingly moving towards a better way, they will happily do it. If you try to legislate it into being, you will fail.

    Pointing out the facts doesn’t automatically oblige you to come up with viable alternatives to the way we live today

    It also doesn’t absolve you. Pointing out the problem is step 1. If you fail to move on to step 2 and 3 and 4… well then, you’ve missed the point of step 1.

  55. TheBlackCat

    @ Lab Rat Jason: The problem is this:

    1. Whenever Phil talks about solutions, people complain that he is getting into politics and should stick to the science.

    2. Whenever Phil talks about the science, people complain that he is not providing solutions.

    Neither group understands, or at least pretends to not understand, that not every post is going to cover every aspect of global warming. Some are about the science. Some are about solutions. Some are about the denialists themselves. Some are about the scientists themselves. Some are meta-discussions about the debate. Some are meta-meta-discussions about the debate about the debate (which we seem to have found ourselves in now).

    If you want solutions you can find them easily enough (you have already been pointed in the right direction, but either missed it or ignored it). But the subject is far to big to cover every aspect in every post.

  56. Frost Bite

    Everyone settle down, it’s under control. Just checked my voicemail, God left a message. He said he’s on top of it, working on it as we speak, he just needs a few more days, having issues with finding Earth again(he’s an Apple guy).

  57. Frost Bite

    Oh crap! Checked my voicemail again, that last message was a prank call from Huehuecoyotl! God quoted Braveheart….”The Almighty tells me he can get himself out of this mess, but he’s pretty sure you’re ……”

  58. Unsettled Scientist

    >Phil follows the people who understand this problem, so it stands to reason he knows where to find the information on the solution, and that’s all I’m asking for.

    Please, read my previous reply to you. As TBC pointed out, you either missed it or ignored it. And you certainly have never spent much time looking for it yourself. Do some basic research, that’s all I’m asking for; and that’s after I’ve already provided you with an excellent resource to get started.

  59. Brian Too

    @55. Lab Rat Jason,
    @44. Chris,

    Imagine that we work the societal changes optimally. That is, not so fast that we hurt lots of essentially innocent citizens, not so slow that we displace millions of people from newly unlivable/undesirable locations. And many other locations will remain desirable living places but could change enough to require different kinds of structures and services.

    Some people believe that our cities character will slowly change. You will see lots more higher density construction, similar to what you see in Europe for instance. You will see fewer suburbs. This will probably not be mandated by government most places. The expense structures in place will likely mean that this is a consumer choice for cost reasons.

    Of course we now live in an information society. Dispersed working environments really are possible on a large scale. Not everyone of course, but enough to make a big difference. So perhaps our cities will slowly break apart into many islands of higher density development, with low density industrial, agricultural or acreage hinterlands between them.

    There are already urban areas, or urbanized regions, that extend for dozens or hundreds of km in many directions. A city without end…

  60. kat wagner

    Today on the Weather Channel, a dude said there’s a 93 percent chance this will be the hottest year on the planet. Is that why we have a drought over 64 percent of the US?

    Today the US Congress decided to let the Farm Bill wait til after the presidential election, never mind farmers who have lost everything because of this confounded no rain thing.

  61. Charlie Foxtrot

    @Chip (6) : Funny, I come here for the science-based reporting on Global Warming, and get the awesome astronomy as a bonus!
    I guess we cancel each other out, and Phil can continue to write whatever he wants on *his* bloody blog, hey?

  62. Austin

    I always see this “groupthink” argument come up, as if the Climatologist Grand Council has decreed that humans are causing warming and that is that. (“The council has spoken!”)

    Do you people know any scientists personally? Have you ever met one in real life? Scientists love to argue, and they love to prove each other wrong.

    And as for the allegation that climatologists need to go with the flow to make money: Get real! A dishonest climatologist would make far more money lobbying for fossil fuel companies, writing best-sellers telling right-wingers what they want to hear, and making appearances on Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly. But you all somehow have it in your head that the members of the vast majority of the field of climatology are all rolling around on giant piles of grant money, laughing at how they’re destroying the economy and forcing the world into an ice age.

  63. Jeff

    I actually know Heidi Cullen of Princeton’s climate group. She is as honest as they come. Read her blogs, and you’ll know the truth too.

    I lik e that flowchart, really makes it an easy slam dunk choice.

    I become a professor because I really don’t like businessmen, they only think of money; well, that’s a stupid stereo type, but they really do focus on money.

    when I was a 16 year old working for a piano company, dreaming of getting into higher ed for a living, I ran across the stereotypical salesman. Boy, did I NOT get alone with those guys. I knew right then and there, academia or death.

  64. Dean C. Hines

    Hey Phil:

    Keep up the educational blogs! Science is messy and uncertain, and yet it has proven to be the only path to reliable knowledge. Yes we scientists love to argue, and we love to be right, but a scientist will yield in the face of overwhelming evidence. Such is the case for human-induced global warming.

    And for all those who think money is a driver for scientists, you ain’t never been a science grad student!

    Cheers!

  65. Deep Thought

    - I have an answer to your question.
    Yes?
    – The quickest way to solve climate change.
    -Yes?
    You’re not going to like it…
    -What is the answer?
    Just a small modification to the exhaust system of all cars, that costs a few dollars.
    -Go on….
    Take a length of hose and connect it to the exhaust, extending it so it can reach the window.
    For faster results, tape up the gap.
    Operate vehicle as normal.
    -That is not funny.
    It isn’t supposed to be.

  66. Theobroma Cacao

    Suggestions that we should turn off lights and ride our bike to work are all nice and warm and fuzzy things to do, but fundamentally irrelevant in the face of the growing middle class in China, India, and Indonesia (Asian coal-powered generation capacity is expected to almost double by 2020 and China is already the biggest CO2 producer by a fair margin). I am afraid that behavioral changes at this late stage, even if they were politically feasible (which I doubt) would be too little, too late. Nuclear might be an option, but I suspect the political hurdles will be far too time consuming for this to be a realistic solution before Boulder, Colorado becomes a port city.

    Pragmatically speaking, it’s looking more and more like we’re going to have to count on some technological breakthrough or geoengineering to have any real impact on the increase in global temperatures. I imagine the major push for these will occur when sea-level rise and extreme storm frequency increase to a point where folks like James Inhofe will say “God is punishing us” and get out of the way.

    Personally, I like the “space sunshade” approach since it has a lot of side benefits that should be obvious to readers of this blog and can be turned off if it has unexpected side effects (as opposed to say, seeding the oceans with iron).

  67. James Evans

    @jasonB:

    “their obscene profits”? What is obscene? Perhaps the fact that Exxon makes about $0.02 profit per gallon. While the average that a state takes in taxes per gallon is $0.48. Some more some less.

    jasonB, expecting Exxon’s take to be anywhere near comparable to a state’s portion is obscene, because—maybe you’ve noticed this—states have MILLIONS of citizens for whom they must provide vital services/infrastructure. Services that include cleaning up massive oil spills for which the company refuses to take adequate responsibility.

    That’s quite a disparity considering one has find, drill, refine, transport, and distribute while the other merely takes a cut.

    Without subsidies provided by those same citizen’s tax dollars, Exxon’s execs would be playing guitars on street corners with tin cups in front of them, so accusing states of “merely taking a cut” without contributing to the effort is not so much obscene as disturbingly childish.

    @ No smoke and mirrors:

    How convenient for the climate religionists to say that the Arctic is melting and not talk about the HUGE elephant in the room… yes, I am talking about the Antarctic. Melting or at record high?

    Gosh, No smoke and mirrors, you forgot to tell us if you were talking about Antarctic land ice, or Antarctic sea ice, so we can’t answer your question. Care to enlighten us which one you meant?

    Once I enjoyed reading this blog for the “space” stuff, but now it’s just a trumpet for Phil’s climate religion. Bookmark deleted.

    Don’t let me interfere while you scoop up your marbles and stomp off, but you might wanna check to see if the elephant in the room is inflatable and you can let the hot air out of it.

  68. jasonB

    @jimevensbelched. Most of the subsidies you speak of are in the form of legitimate tax right offs. Do you take any write offs on you taxes? No, I’m sure a good little liberal like you pays even more than than you’re required, right? Yea I know you don’t. Now how much more in income, sales, estate, payroll, soon health care taxes, et al. should we all pay so you don’t consider our profits obscene? Please tell me oh wise one.

    Now go back to wanting everyone else to pay for your goodies and maybe mommy will let you stay up late tonight if you behave.

  69. Sam Regenbogen

    Phil, could you do a blog post some time devoted to explaining how the federal funding of science actually works, please? Every time a so-called controversial science-based topic comes up on the Internet (whether it’s climate change, vaccine dangers, radiation from cellphones, or even creationism-evolution “debates”), I’ll inevitably see at least one or two commenters make the case that “well, scientists are human too, and motivated by money. If they publish results that buck the ‘scientific consensus’ they’ll risk losing their funding from the government, so you can’t really blame them for being biased towards giving the answers the government wants.”

    It’s really frustrating, because a lot of the time, these will seem to be some of the most intelligent and rational participants in the discussions, and their argument is often solid logical reasoning (obviously I’m not talking about anyone who ever uses the word “shill”, especially if it’s followed by “for Big _____). Thus their arguments can be an extremely persuasive appeal to mutual understanding. The problem is that their premise itself is ERRONEOUS. Erroneous on both counts!

    We can increase science literacy all we want, but at the end of the day, if even the MOST scientifically literate non-scientists believe that federal funding (i.e., most scientists’ funding) depends on how favorable their results are to the government’s interests, the nation will never be able to trust the integrity and impartiality of the scientific record when it comes time to make difficult policy decisions. It’s a very insidious mistake because it seems so damn logical, and because the only people who even realize that the assumption is mistaken are the same people it’s about.

  70. Chris

    @67 Theobroma Cacao

    I agree that without the cooperation of all the other nations, the Earth is screwed. Even if everyone in the US went Amish, those other countries spewing out CO2 will still raise our temps.

    As to the “space sunshade”, while that may reduce global temps it doesn’t address the problem of increased CO2 concentrations. CO2 dissolves in the oceans, reducing the pH (making them more acidic) this causes the organisms which have calcium carbonate shells to dissolve. Also disrupt the body chemistry of the fish. The ocean acidification will basically kill the food chain and cause even more problems. The only way that solves global warming and ocean acidification is to reduce CO2 emissions.

  71. kat wagner

    Stephen Colbert spoke to Errol Morris, who wrote a book about a green beret who was (wrongly) found guilty of murdering his wife and kids in 1970. Morris said the jury should have been allowed to hear about other people’s confessions in the case.

    And Colbert asked him, “If Americans cared about evidence, don’t you think we’d be doing something about global warming?”

  72. Chip @ #6 said: “My fraking electric bill, anyone??”

    Well, here’s the chance to cut your electricity bill by using energy more efficiently. There are people where I live (Canberra in Australia) who pay no electricity bill because their houses are energy efficient and they generate their own power. With the house we live in that isn’t possible, but there are plenty of savings to be made, without trying hard.

    We have a huge electricity bill because we have an old inefficient air conditioner. Well, we’re going to be replacing it soon, and I expect the replacement will pay for itself in only a couple of years.

    After that, solar hot water.

    “…to stop CO2 oh horrible, horrible gas!”

    Why the sarcasm? Because plants like carbon dioxide so more in the atmosphere means more plants? Not necessarily: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2891924.htm

    “As carbon dioxide levels increase in the atmosphere some of our food crops will respond by becoming less nutritious and produce more toxins.”

  73. Samsam von virginia @ #13 said: “If we drastically reduce carbon emissions, the economy WILL suffer. Lots of folks seem to think that’s OK since the alternative is so bad. How about this: we fuel our economy to work at its best, so there is sufficient financial resources to develop the alternative energy sources. Fusion already does not get nearly enough funding… why squash our chances of developing a very good alternative?”

    With respect, that sounds like setting fire to the lifeboat you’re in, so you don’t get too cold: it’s okay if rescue is near, dangerous if rescue is not at hand.

    The problem with fusion energy is that it seems to have been about 1o years away for the last 30 years or so…

    The thing that makes me shake my head is that there are so many simple things people can do which save money that also happen to be environmentally friendly. Why use incandescent lights when compact fluoros use a third of the energy and last years longer? Why chuck your washing in the dryer when a clothes line does it for free? The people who lived in our house before us used to shut it up in summer and use the aircon to keep it cool. We open the doors and windows and let the breeze do it for free.

  74. Lab Rat Jason @ 55 said: “I’ll give you an example. My vehicle gets about 20mpg. Not great I know, but I own it. I don’t make payments. My total cost for fuel and service per month is about $150 – $200 depending on how often I visit my folks. Now how much is a new fuel efficient (hybrid maybe) vehicle? 20K? 30k? But assuming the same ammount of milage, it only cuts my fuel usage in half… so I’m saving myself $75-$100 a month, but I’m stuck under a $500/mo. payment for the next five years…”

    With respect Jason, you seem to be trying to make replacing your car as hard as possible. I think I can challenge you on just about every one of your figures.

    “Now how much is a new fuel efficient (hybrid maybe) vehicle? 20K? 30k?”

    I was able to find new non-hybrid hatchbacks on sale in the USA for under $16k.

    “But assuming the same ammount of milage, it only cuts my fuel usage in half…”

    These cars were recorded at 30mpg in the city. (And just for the record, my [i]station wagon[/i] manages 30mpg in the city, usually carrying the equivalent of two adults, so it shouldn’t be hard for a hatchback.)

    “…so I’m saving myself $75-$100 a month…”

    Okay, at 30mpg you’re only saving a third, not a half.

    “…but I’m stuck under a $500/mo. payment for the next five years…”

    Which applies only if you buy a more expensive car. With the $16k car you’re looking at $290/month.

  75. TheBlackCat

    @ jasonB: “Most of the subsidies you speak of are in the form of legitimate tax right offs.”
    How is that remotely relevant to the issue at hand? No one is claiming that they are breaking the law, only that their profits are not solely due to their own work. They pay less U.S. taxes than the majority of Americans. They paid no federal taxes at all in 2009.

  76. Ozonator aka Robert Rhodes

    It should be noted that such grass roots extremist media outlets like Coast2Coast4payola and Fox News radio have totally ignored the staggering arctic loss and bragged about the ice abundance in the antarctic. Even Arab sheiks hadn’t thought of moving ice from pole to pole in the 1970’s being limited by wealth, power, and religion. Expect Mengele Morano types to swift boat Santa and claim that he was a penguin instead of German elf with a thyroid problem. Expect Evil Inhofe to declare the carbon footprint is the “happy feet” of EssoKochs. And, Romney surrogate – Governor Bobby Jindal of Jindalstan, will give BP money back from his tax on tar balls. “Louisiana has $130M left over from last year” (AP; theadvertiser.com, 9/20/12).

  77. As I first asked earlier on the “Looking down on the snow of Kilimanjaro” thread (link in my name) – There’s a few, (well ten technically) questions that I’d like to ask those who think Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) could possibly be one giant conspiracy :

    1. Do you have any idea how many serious and decent researchers who a wide range of political and personal views you are accusing of criminal and unethical behaviour?

    2. Do you think Svante Arrhenius was a fraudster when he published the first paper on the Greenhouse effect back in 1896?

    3. Or Katherine Hayhoe, evangelical Christian and erstwhile co-author with Republican presidential nominee contender Newt Gingrich?

    4. Do you think NASA’s top climatologist James Hansen is a fraudster?

    5. Do you think scientists and science popularisers Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and Stephen Hawking are involved in or duped by fraud given they all accept the climatological consensus?

    6. Do you think that Phil Plait is lying or involved somehow or just duped?

    7. How deep and broad do you think this “conspiracy” goes?

    8. Who exactly are the fraudsters?

    9. What basis do you have for such serious charges – and finally

    10. why should we treat the conspiracy theory regarding HIRGO not happening any more seriously than the conspiracy theory that the Moon landings didn’t happen?

  78. noen

    “The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views…which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.” Uttered by the Fourth Doctor, played by Tom Baker, in the episode “The Face of Evil.”

  79. bad Jim

    I think that deniers start with the idea that people are on their own, and that collective action is either wrong or impossible, hence their emphasis on personal virtue. If that’s right, then their resistance is driven by cognitive dissonance: problems can only be fixed by individual initiative, so to the extent that this one requires common action it can’t be real. To put it into Chicago terms: since markets are perfectly efficient, if global warming was really a problem the market would be handling it already.

    It’s reasonable to suppose that the claim that nearly all the world’s scientists are deluded or complicit in a conspiracy is sufficient evidence of arrogant ignorance, pure Dunning-Kruger effect. The problem is that even well-educated Americans tend to reject both evolution and global warming, so there’s something else going on.

    Global warming, to the extent that it requires governments around the world to act together to avoid catastrophe, is an affront to rugged individualism and the American Way of Life. Biology is anathema when it fails to affirm human exceptionalism.

  80. Nigel Depledge

    Lab Rat Jason (5) said:

    So you obviously passionate about the problem, but I don’t see you posting much in the way of solutions… I’d like to see more on that.

    Phil is debunking some of the claims made by AGW deniers.

    At what point does he take on responsibility to disseminate information about proposed solutions?

    Just go and read any ten recent issues of NewScientist. They often have articles about potential solutions to AGW.

  81. Nigel Depledge

    Chip (6) said:

    Oh, my goodness. I come here to see awesome astronomy info – and get this crap again. Phil, how about the HUGE taxes proposed (CAP and TRADE, anyone? My fraking electric bill, anyone??) to stop CO2 (oh horrible, horrible gas!) from rising? Where do those taxes go? Follow THAT money trail, please.

    OK, back this up with some evidence.

    Who is proposing huge taxes? Where and when was this published?

    Who is proposing “cap and trade”? Where and when was this published?

    Assuming you are a US citizen, the taxes on your ‘leccy bill go into the government coffers, from whence most of it then goes to the DoD or to some of the large social welfare programmes. Perhaps 1% goes on science, of which perhaps 1% goes to climatology.

    Or was this a Poe?

  82. Alan

    Here are some questions to contemplate.
    Why does carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation more than nitrogen, oxygen or argon?
    Why is it that, if a car is left in the open on a clear night a little below freezing, more frost forms on the roof than on the doors?
    How does Doppler line broadening affect the energy budget of the atmosphere?
    When it starts to rain, does the humidity in a Stephenson screen go up, down or stay the same?
    If you don’t know (knowing is not the same as Googling) the answers to these questions, you don’t know enough about climate science to judge competing claims about global warming.

    A suggestion to those who do know: let those who don’t go off and learn some physics all by themselves. In the unlikely event that they make the effort, the answers will stick.

  83. Nigel Depledge

    Mike (7) trolled :

    It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy as this writer likes to claim.

    It does if climate scientists are – as many deniers claim – fabricating data. Otherwise, all it would take is one honest climatologist to blow the whole operation.

    I have heard the same claims from the left of a right wing conspiracy.

    I’m pretty sure there’s no actual conspiracy, just oil and coal companies doing their level best to maximise profits.

    Did you learn nothing from the tobacco industry fiasco 40 years ago?

    It looks like Exxon et al. were taking detailed notes.

    No one can deny it is in a scientists best interest to continue producing science that gets hem additional government funds.

    I do.

    It is in a scientist’s best interest to do the best-quality science they can.

    Anything else is too short-term. It takes (typically) a couple of decades to go from starting a PhD to becoming an established, reputable scientist. Some people who are especially bright or especially lucky do it faster, but I’d guess this is the case for > 80% of scientists.

    The first time a climatologist stands against his piers and raises arguments is the time they lose money.

    Wrong.

    So very, very wrong.

    If that lone climatologist is right, he makes his reputation.

    James Hansen did it, 30-odd years ago. He’s now one of the world’s top climate scientists. Why? Because the predictions he made then have been borne out by the data.

    Scientist like all people are motivated by money.

    This is rubbish.

    Sure, any scientist wants to earn a decent wage, but if money was their primary motivating factor, they would have become a doctor or lawyer or accountant instead of a scientist. No-one starts out in science with the expectation of earning seriously big bucks.

    Funny you are more apt to believe corporations use money to get what they want

    With business, it’s all about the bottom line. It’s not a belief, it’s the basic operating principle of capitalism.

    but you honestly believe scientists with huge funding from environmental groups will come to some other answer.

    What scientists have “huge funding” from environmental groups? What environmental groups are dishing out “huge funding”??

    I need to know. Even though I’m a biochemist, I gotta get me some of that “huge funding”!

  84. @68. James Evans :

    @ No smoke and mirrors: Don’t let me interfere while you scoop up your marbles and stomp off, but you might wanna check to see if the elephant in the room is inflatable and you can let the hot air out of it.

    I laughed aloud at that. Well said. ;-)

    @34. No smoke and mirrors :

    How convenient for the climate religionists ..

    Climate religionists? Really? :roll:

    Gee, its not like the climate scientist have spent decades of their lives struggling to understand the issues and factors here, passed exams on the subject, passed or modified their works in response to peer reviews, gone out in the field(s) and taken physical measurements and observations, spent endless hours calculating and refining codes and testing and retesting the evidence .. and faced public hatred and death threats and vexatious litigation for their pains is it? Oh wait, they have.

    ..to say that the Arctic is melting and not talk about the HUGE elephant in the room… yes, I am talking about the Antarctic. Melting or at record high? Oh, snap!

    You haven’t visited the Skeptical Science website have you N S &M? (Hint : Click on my name for link or look up – Skeptical Science : Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?)

    Or heard of the disintegartion of several ice shelves on the Antartic peninsula obviously.

    And before claiming that there are more extreme weather events, you could provide with ONE single shred of evidence to testify changes compared to at least 200 years ago. Oh, that’s right, there is no evidence.

    Oh isn’t there? :roll:

    Happen to hear about the record low Arctic Sea ice levels this Northern hemisphere summer – or seen the graphs showing the trend for that alone?

    Look up The National Snow & Ice Data Centre ‘s website for plenty of evidence plus the NASA page on climate change and the NOAA one and the CO2 Now website which tracks the ever rising level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere on a monthly basis and , well so many more.

    Were you really typing that with a straight face or just doing a Poe?

    Once I enjoyed reading this blog for the “space” stuff, but now it’s just a trumpet for Phil’s climate religion. Bookmark deleted.

    You realise that the great space stuff is still being posted here as well as teh occassional HIRGO post right? And funnily enough, I don’t ever recall seeing your nym commenting on it at all. Oh well, your loss. :-P

    @. Lab Rat Jason :

    Hey Phil: So you obviously passionate about the problem, but I don’t see you posting much in the way of solutions… I’d like to see more on that.

    I’m not Phil Plait & I’m not going to claim to have all the answers but I’d recommend you try reading the suggestions of NASA’s top climatologist Jim Hansen in his Storms of My Grandchildren book especially on his Fee and Dividend alternative idea to Cap’n’Trade.

    Plus a book written by journalist Monbiot (forgotten the title, sorry – will check and post link later) which was specifically tackling that very issue and the ‘Carbon Detox’ book (with associated website) by George Marshall dealing with a whole range of things individuals can do. Hope that helps. :-)

  85. Phil, have you thought of writing a book about the evidence for global warming? You certainly have a big part of the homework done :)

  86. Nigel Depledge

    JasonB (9) said:

    What is obscene? Perhaps the fact that Exxon makes about $0.02 profit per gallon. While the average that a state takes in taxes per gallon is $0.48. Some more some less.

    That’s quite a disparity considering one has find, drill, refine, transport, and distribute while the other merely takes a cut.

    Yeah, and the one has accountability only to its shareholders, while the other has to care for 300 million voters.

    It doesn’t matter what proportion of the pump price goes to the actual oil companies (and don’t forget how much they get from the electricity-generation industry!), what is “obscene” is the enormous profits they make, while abrogating responsibility for what their product is doing to the planet that our grandchildren will have to clean up.

    Or do you honestly believe that oil-company execs deserve their 7- or 8- figure salaries?

  87. Just some pretty reasonable good sources of info & providing evidence for HIRGO :

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

    List of arguments comprehensively debunking climate contrarian canards.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    NASA’s climate info and evidence page.

    http://co2now.org/

    Website enabling us to keep track of the Carbon dioxide levels every month – and some of the consequences – with lots more there too.

    Oh & also linked in my name here is the NSIDC website tracking Arctic Sea ice and doing it very well as mentioned in my comment of 21st of September 2012 at 3:21 am.

    These aren’t exactly hard to find and, yeah, I’ve posted them before on other threads on the HIRGO issue but hopefully it still helps. :-)

  88. Deep Thought

    @noen – I really miss the Fourth Dr Who. I can’t bear to even look at Dr Who now.

  89. Messier Tidy Upper

    Solutions for #5 Lab Rat Jason :

    http://www.carbondetox.org/

    Carbon detox – book’s website.

    http://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

    Pretty sure this is the one I’m thinking of – ‘Heat How we can stop the planet burning’ via the authors website. Borrowed it from the local library ages ago – quite a good and impressive read.

    Plus check out this :youtube clip

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4yA_kRejp0&feature=plcp

    Energy Efficiency Part 2 by Peter Sinclair – one of a great serie swith other solutions suggested there.

    Personally, I have solar panels on my roof, don’t drive and spend time planting trees at regular events as part of the Million trees organisation among other things. I’m not perfect and always trying to get better but I am working on a few things and trying to be environmentally good.

  90. Turboblocke
  91. Endangered Ape

    Reading the deniers here only reminds me why humans, on average, deserve the coming climate disasters we are creating. We’re frankly just too stupid as a species to have advanced technology. Apes recently out of the trees with delusions of grandeur. The irony is that those few of us with decent brains will also get exactly what all these imbeciles deserve.

    But fair’s got nothing to do with it.

  92. Valhar2000

    Are a majority of BA readers climate change deniers? If not, how come there are so many of them coming out of the wood-work? Do they just search for blogs to post comments on en-masse?

  93. Nigel Depledge

    Samsam von Virginia (13) said:

    If we drastically reduce carbon emissions, the economy WILL suffer.

    AFAICT, this is a myth.

    How about you back up your starting assumption with some evidence, hey?

    ChazInMT (16) said:

    Again I say, OK! We F’d up the atmosphere and now it’s warmer….did ya ever consider the chart showing Earths temperature over the last 500,000 years? Where is the temperature “Normally” when we look at that? Well by Golly, Its a Freakin Ice Age!!

    And again you’d be wrong.

    Just as wrong as you were in the last thread in which AGW came up.

    It doesn’t matter what the temperature was doing 500,000 years ago, or 2 million years ago, or 200,000 years ago. All that matters is what it has done over the last 10,000 years.

    Why? Because that’s the climate in which human civilisation arose, and the climate on which it depends.

    So, if we had to choose, would we rather have the Earth be “too warm”? Or….we could let it run its natural course and have another Ice Age for the next 70-80 thousand years.

    Well, lucky for all of us, this is not the choice that we face.

    There is, AFAICT, no evidence whatever that another ice age was or would be imminent in the absence of AGW.

    The Earth’s climate has been unusually stable over the last 10,000 years. Well, if you don’t count that last 150 years, it has.

    Even if another ice age were in the offing (assuming the absence of AGW), the cooling that preceded it would be slower than the warming we are experiencing now, so life (us included) would have more time to adapt.

  94. Nigel Depledge

    AJ (27) said:

    My opinion is that “alarmist” scientists could be biased by group-think and grant money.

    And what is the basis for this opinion?

    And how does this explain the existence of a consensus among climate scientists about the broad conclusions (i.e. that AGW is real and that it is bad news for human society)? Surely not all reputable climate scientists are “alarmist”?

    (I assume by your use of the term “alarmist” that you imply at the very least a significant exaggeration of the magnitude of the AGW issue.)

  95. Nigel Depledge

    AJ (27) said:

    “Deniers” could be biased as solutions offend their libertarian values.

    And profits.

    And liability.

    Let’s imagine a world in which the evidence for AGW and the effects thereof is so solid that a federal court would hold big polluters liable for the results of their pollution.

    If you were an oil-company exec, or a director of an electricity generation company, wouldn’t you want to avoid that world at all costs?

  96. Nigel Depledge

    Lab Rat Jason (31) said:

    I want to see viable alternatives to the way we live today.

    Have you looked?

    At all?

    There are scads of them. Here are just a few (some are in use now, some are at pilot-plant stage, and some are still just on paper):

    1. Generate electricity without burning fossil fuels, e.g.:
    1a. Wind power;
    1b. Solar panels;
    1c. Solar thermal plants;
    1d. Nuclear power (still not carbon-neutral, but can be a useful bridging option between now and a genuinely low-carbon future);
    1e. Hydroelectric power;
    1f. Wave power;
    1g. Tide power.
    2. Energy-efficiency measures, such as:
    2a. better insulation for homes and offices;
    2b. low-energy light-bulbs;
    2c. energy-efficient household appliances;
    2d. fuel-efficient vehicles.
    3. Low-carbon building materials (e.g. a form of cement that does not require the baking of calcium carbonate to produce calcium oxide and CO2).
    4. Planting trees to act as a short-term carbon sink.
    5. Carbon capture and storage.
    6. Geoengineering, for instance to:
    6a. Increase the proportion of sunlight that is reflected from Earth’s surface into space;
    6b. Atmospheric aerosols to increase albedo of the atmosphere;
    6c. Space mirrors (yes, this one’s highly speculative).

  97. Lab Rat Jason

    @Peter B #74
    Peter… finish the math now. What is the break even point of spending 16k on a car that is only 30% more efficient?

    @Nigel #91
    I love all those answers, I was aware of most of them, some I was not, but there are good SOLID reasons to NOT do any of those solutions, and most of it involves other undesireable impact, such as hydroelectric dams preventing fish from reaching spawning grounds, or the cost of lifting space mirrors into orbit.

    I find that people have a tendancy to assume that all these wonderful solutions operate in a “set it and forget it” way, but they don’t… each one has a drawback that makes it undesireable in some way.

    I know it seems I’m arguing against all these solutions, that’s not the case. I’m encouraged by all the cool ideas, but they need to get better before large numbers of people will go to them.

    I am going to try to gracefully bow out of this conversation because it really has strayed too far from my original position which was: Phil, I’d like to see more about solutions. I read Phil’s blog because I like the way he writes and makes things easy to understand. I can’t imagine it would hurt him to bring up the occasional story about how this can be fixed, considering he already runs in those circles.

    Thanks for the engaging conversation.

    (just as an aside, can you immagine the conspericy theorists response to spraying aerosols into the atmosphere? “G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate”)

  98. mike burkhart

    You have a point about the oil companys. I think the answer is to find tecnogly that will remove the greenhouse gases from the atmospher. After all if tecnogly put CO2 in the atmospher then there should be some that could remove CO2 (not all just the excess). This way the problem is solved.This should be the next problem that Science should work on. One way to remove excess CO2 : Plant more trees and plants.Off topic: I see there are some like me who read George Orwells 1984,I wanted to be a science fiction writer once and had an idea for a future worse then 1984 heare it is: In the future the goverment (take your pick) controlls people and wipes out disent by puting devices into every citzens brain that controlls what they think and programs there brains to love,suport and never disagree with the goverment. I think this would be a worse future then 1984 , freedom of thought wiped out I can’t think of anything worse then that. To bad I never wrote and published it.

  99. paul

    Just a nitpick: There doesn’t have to be any conspiracy going on for this sort of thing to work: you simply fund the people who agree with your views, and that gives them a career survival advanatage over the people you don’t fund. Just the same as with directed breeding of plants or animals.

  100. TheBlackCat

    @ paul: ignoring the fact that this is not how science works, this would still require that everyone who is in a position to make funding decisions (which at various times will be most established scientists in a country) all have to agree to begin with, and all make funding decisions primarily on that agreement. I don’t see how that could be accomplished in the time frame we are talking about (less than a single scientist’s career) without explicit agreement amongst those involved.

  101. Unsettled Scientist

    >a book about the evidence for global warming

    http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Understanding-David-Archer/dp/1405140399

    Or one directly about landmark the scientific papers published over the the past century plus…

    http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-David-Archer/dp/1405196165

  102. AJ

    Nigel Depledge (95) Says:

    “And what is the basis for this opinion?”

    First a clarification. If I were to rewrite my comment, it would read “could be biased by group-think, gatekeeping, and grant money. Contrary results could reduce your expected future funding.”

    This opinion is based on what I’ve seen over the last few years. An influential group of like-minded scientists seem to readily accept papers that conform with their view. Papers that do not conform seem to have higher hurdles to clear and, if they somehow do, then “corrective” action is taken (e.g. getting science editors fired). It’s just my perception of how the business works.

  103. TheBlackCat

    @ AJ: scientists generally get upset when demonstrably bad papers are pushed through by editors with a demonstrated bias without proper peer review in a journal inappropriate for the subject at hand. That isn’t a conspiracy or group-think, that is the whole point of peer review.

    It is a tactic used by creationists too, it allows them to be able to claim that they have stuff published in peer-reviewed journals (even if the article wasn’t really peer-reviewed), and then play the martyr card when scientists get justifiably upset at this blatant abuse of the scientific process.

    If you can provide any papers that were not garbage but had this happened, then you might have something, but being upset at severe breaches of scientific ethics is not the same thing as “group-think”.

  104. Bearguin

    Haven’t read through all the comments, but has anyone happened to mention the logic of this little diagram is the same as those lamenting against “big pharmacy” and supporting homeopathy?

    (In other words it’s a really stupid argument)

  105. TheBlackCat

    @ Bearguin: I agree it is a stupid argument. The problem is that it was the denialists who brought up the “follow the money” argument in the first place as a criticism of scientists. The point of the diagram is to show the flaws in the denialists’ own argument, not to present a new argument.

    It is more like we are criticizing homeopaths who use the “big pharma” gambit against scientists by pointing out that homeopaths have more of a financial stake in the results than many scientists do.

  106. Regner Trampedach

    How do scientists apply for grants? Many seem to believe that we apply for a grant to show something, e.g., “We want to show that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming”. I you submitted a grant application like that, you would be laughed out of the room by both your colleagues and the funding agency – Because it wouldn’t be science. It would be pseudo science.
    In science you ask questions and that is what you apply for funding for. A serious grant application would instead read “We want to find the major effects of anthropogenic CO2″. You get grants for answering questions that you don’t know the answer to. That is also why there are no recent papers showing that CO2 causes global warming – we know that, and have known so for quite a while. You don’t get grant money for confirming your own prejudice, which is the implication of this silly conspiracy theory.
    And, as many others have noted: You get ahead in science if you can show that everybody else is wrong – not by simply confirming everybody else. But reality is ruthless and peer-review will cut you down quickly if you merely pull stuff out if your grass-hole.
    Cheers, Regner

  107. Chris Winter

    Mike wrote (#7): “No one can deny it is in a scientists best interest to continue producing science that gets hem additional government funds. The first time a climatologist stands against his piers (sic) and raises arguments is the time they lose money.”

    Are scientists getting funded to prove gravity exists, or to probe the implications of Newton’s laws of motion? How much funding is there for research supporting the germ theory of disease? Science has established the reality of global warming. No one will pay to have it proved all over again. Dis-proving it, on the other hand, would bring in funding by the truckload — if it could be done.

    “Scientists like all people are motivated by money.”

    If you care to check it, you will find that the primary motivation for many scientists is the urge to find things out. Of course money is one motivation for them — they have to eat, buy clothes, pay their mortgage, etc. — but not the top priority. Indeed, IIRC only 25 percent of the population as a whole puts earning at top priority in the rewards they expect from employment.

    How many rich scientists have you heard of? As compared to corporate CEOs, that is. Tycho Brahe had his own island, I believe. He may have been the last.

    “Funny you are more apt to believe corporations use money to get what they want but you honestly believe scientists with huge funding from environmental groups will come to some other answer. Hey writer don’t be a sheep.”

    What’s funny is that this “huge funding” is so hard to document, whereas the sums paid to think-tanks by tobacco companies and more recently by fossil-fuel companies are a matter of record — as are the secret memoranda revealing their intent to sow confusion.

    And even without that, the way corporations protest any imposition of pollution control measures is well known. As is the tendency of certain corporations (BP definitely; ExxonMobil does better) to defer expenses like pipeline maintenance in favor of higher profits — with predictable results.

  108. Chris Winter

    Fizz wrote (#32): “It is possible to disagree in good [conscience].”

    That depends on what is being disagreed with. Only when it comes to the science of climate are large numbers of people disagreeing with long-established scientific facts on the matter.

  109. Chris Winter

    Sam Regenbogen wrote (#70): “Phil, could you do a blog post some time devoted to explaining how the federal funding of science actually works, please? Every time a so-called controversial science-based topic comes up on the Internet (whether it’s climate change, vaccine dangers, radiation from cellphones, or even creationism-evolution “debates”), I’ll inevitably see at least one or two commenters make the case that “well, scientists are human too, and motivated by money. If they publish results that buck the ‘scientific consensus’ they’ll risk losing their funding from the government, so you can’t really blame them for being biased towards giving the answers the government wants.”

    Here’s a decent explanation wrt government climate-science funding. (It’s got lousy contrast, but if you highlight each paragraph it will be legible.)

    http://theamericanheathen.com/2012/06/09/government-funding-of-science-how-it-works/

  110. TheBlackCat

    @ Chris: “Only when it comes to the science of climate are large numbers of people disagreeing with long-established scientific facts on the matter.”

    To be fair, there are others. Evolution and modern medicine come to mind.

  111. JC

    @jasonB: If you think the OWS folks weren’t targeting the Democrats, also, you’re mistaken. By your overall tone in this thread, I’m going to assume your views on OWS were led by conservative news media.

    BUT, that’s actually completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, and I’m pretty sure you know it.

    One more time: Being against undue corporate influence in politics is NOT the same as being against the existence of corporations or their products. Therefore, your cute little “OMG the protestors have iPhones what hypocrites!” doesn’t really say or prove anything, other than your willingness to argue against a strawman. Uh, good job ?

    Now, you probably could find some people who fit your description, but they’re hardly representative of the OWS people in general.

  112. TheBlackCat

    @ JC: Huh? What does Open World Soccer have to do with glo…oh wait nevermind.

  113. shunt1

    I LOVE THAT POSTER!!!!!

    I need to get that printed and posted on my wall.

    Phil, this must be an all time classic from you. LOL

    Damit, where is my share of all that “big oil” money?

    This is also a perfect example of the deception presented by the human caused global warming side of the debate. If you must use deception to present your case, then there is something seriously wrong with your factual information.

  114. shunt1

    Please post a list of the people involved and the amount of money received by them each year. This must include all research grants.

    Simply make two lists for all of the primary people involved on both sides of the debate.

    PROVE IT!

    You may be surprised, if you ever actually do the research.

    Most people on the “there are problems with this data” have been retired meteorologists and have done their research with minimal financial support.

    The other side has received government and university funding.

  115. James Evans

    @jasonB:

    Now how much more in income, sales, estate, payroll, soon health care taxes, et al. should we all pay so you don’t consider our profits obscene? Please tell me oh wise one.

    Uh, no, don’t think so. It was you, oh wise jasonB, not me, who initially alerted us all to poor wittle wet-diaper Exxon’s deplorable persecution at the greedy, tax-happy, gouge-athon hands of ruthless state officials. Remember that part? Hmmmmmmm?

    You do NOT get to pin the Crown of Taxation Wisdom on me. No, no, no, little jasonB, of the Omniscient Right-Wing Tax Break Brotherhood. It is YOURS and YOURS ALONE. If you don’t like wearing the crown, and the endless, crushing burden of performing related salvation/shelter/loophole duties, then stop waving it around telling everyone how much you know about taxation fairness.

    ”Wwwwwaaaaa!!!! Someone save us!!!!! We’re being taxed!!!! WWWWWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!”

    ”What is that I hear?! I must sally forth to Exxon’s rescue!!!! Another state thinks it’s allowed to balance the budget!!! I will show them!!! Where’s my trumpet…? Oh, there it is… Dooo-doo-DDDDOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    The Champion of All Woefully Beleaguered Oils Execs Making 500 Times an Average Employee’s Salary Yet Still in Pressing Need of Immediate Tax Breaks to Buy More 10,000 Sq. Ft. Palm Beach Resort Homes, tells, he doesn’t ask, so don’t request my guidance now.

    Or.

    Take off the cape and crown, set down the trumpet and sword, stop charging into forum threads making childish pronouncements, and, instead, leave it up to state officials—who have a much better grasp of their budgetary needs than any of us here or at Exxon HQ—to set the number.

    You know, like all of us were doing before you showed up, blaring your trumpet and declaring yourself the Mighty Slayer of Ravenous Tax Dragons.

  116. shunt1

    @117. James Evans

    You can do anything that you want with your own money.

    We have never argued with you on that point. If there is something that you honestly support, then feel free to finance those ideas that you support and agree with.

    I (we) have absolutely no desire to force you to spend your own money in ways that you do not agree with.

    Almost 50% of Americans agree with you and that is a huge pile of money that you can pool together. Do what you want with your own money, but keep us out of it.

  117. shunt1

    @117. James Evans

    Those of us who have become adults no longer need our parents (or government) to take care of us.

    There are things that all Americans share in common like basic infrastructure (road, bridges, sewer, water) which government organizations were formed for. Nobody has a problem with those basic functions of a government.

    Most of us are trying very hard to prevent CW2.

    If you do not like corporations like Exxon, then simply DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCT!

    Why is that concept so difficult to understand?

  118. TheBlackCat

    This is also a perfect example of the deception presented by the human caused global warming side of the debate. If you must use deception to present your case, then there is something seriously wrong with your factual information.

    I notice you don’t actually provide any evidence whatsoever of deception.

    Please post a list of the people involved and the amount of money received by them each year. This must include all research grants.

    Simply make two lists for all of the primary people involved on both sides of the debate.

    And how are we supposed to get this information, since denialist organizations like the Heartland institute don’t make their budgets public?

    Most people on the “there are problems with this data” have been retired meteorologists and have done their research with minimal financial support.

    “PROVE IT”. Provide a list of the major “there are problems with this data” people and their education and employment background. “You may be surprised, if you ever actually do the research.”

    The other side has received government and university funding.

    So has the denialist side. However, the government funding is not contingent on them drawing a particular conclusion, while the oil industry funding is. That is the difference. Government funding is given to people who say something new. Oil industry funding is given to people who say what the oil industry likes.

    Almost 50% of Americans agree with you and that is a huge pile of money that you can pool together. Do what you want with your own money, but keep us out of it.

    So does that mean I don’t have to pay for the military if I don’t support a war being fought? Do I not have to pay for roads if I don’t drive? Of course not, it is only causes you oppose that shouldn’t be funded.

    Those of us who have become adults no longer need our parents (or government) to take care of us.

    So we just disband the military, the police, the transportation department, the department of energy, and the FDA? Somehow I doubt that.

    There are things that all Americans share in common like basic infrastructure (road, bridges, sewer, water) which government organizations were formed for. Nobody has a problem with those basic functions of a government.

    We don’t share the air and water in common?

    If you do not like corporations like Exxon, then simply DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCT!

    That would be great if there was an alternative that isn’t as bad. Unfortunately the oil and coal industries have a stranglehold on our energy infrastructure, we simply can’t avoid using them without a large investment in new infrastructure, and invest you seem to oppose.

  119. Matt B.

    @0 BA – “Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying. And those who do tend to be caught by the peer-review process.” (emphasis mine)

    That should be “…those who don’t…” Short for in “those who don’t abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying”.

  120. Paddy

    I highly recommend this blog article on the current state of play of the “debate”: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09/21/antarctic-sea-ice-and-the-art-of-climate-distra/190063

  121. James Evans

    @shunt1:

    Almost 50% of Americans agree with you and that is a huge pile of money that you can pool together. Do what you want with your own money, but keep us out of it…Those of us who have become adults no longer need our parents (or government) to take care of us.

    So when do Exxon and other oil companies get off the government till, and stop sucking up my tax dollars, shunt1? Hmmmm? Take this argument to the Exxon boardroom where they love being little children wallowing in piles of Washington’s Mommy-and-Daddy trust fund socialist dollars.

    Why is that concept so difficult to understand?

    Adults usually comprehend simple ideas, so spare me the transparent tax-free hero routine.

  122. shunt1

    120. TheBlackCat:

    I wish to thank you for your well reasoned reply. I will try to tackle each of the items as best as I can. Remember, my ability to express myself has always been my weak point, but I will do what I can.

    “I notice you don’t actually provide any evidence whatsoever of deception.”

    Well, we were talking about the poster at the top of this topic. Not providing any evidence to support the claims of that poster is what I was complaining about.

    “And how are we supposed to get this information, since denialist organizations like the Heartland institute don’t make their budgets public? ”

    If I remember correctly, the Heartland budget for last year has become public knowledge. Rather a small sum of money involved.

    “So has the denialist side. However, the government funding is not contingent on them drawing a particular conclusion, while the oil industry funding is. That is the difference. Government funding is given to people who say something new. Oil industry funding is given to people who say what the oil industry likes.”

    Notice that I have stated that our side of the debate has been about “there are problems with the data” and these problems must be resolved. Your claim of ” Oil industry funding is given to people who say what the oil industry likes” is using evidence not provided. Actually, that is something that you actually need to prove.

    “So does that mean I don’t have to pay for the military if I don’t support a war being fought? Do I not have to pay for roads if I don’t drive?”

    Well actually, that is exactly what the other 50% of Americans have been saying. Our country was based upon the Militia concept and had a horror of a standing Army. Militia and Jury duties were things that you had to perform as a citizen.

    “So we just disband the military, the police, the transportation department, the department of energy, and the FDA? Somehow I doubt that.”

    The citizens will pool their support to fund departments such as these, if they are providing the services which are requested. But if citizens do not support those functions, then you will not be provided with those services.

    “We don’t share the air and water in common?”

    Sure, and I have absoluty no problems with the air and water that we are currently sharing in common.

    “That would be great if there was an alternative that isn’t as bad. Unfortunately the oil and coal industries have a stranglehold on our energy infrastructure, we simply can’t avoid using them without a large investment in new infrastructure, and invest you seem to oppose.”

    You always have a choice. If you do not want their product, then simply do not purchase it!

  123. shunt1

    @122. James Evans:

    “So when do Exxon and other oil companies get off the government till, and stop sucking up my tax dollars, shunt1?”

    Question:

    How many tax dollars did Exxon ACTUALLY RECEIVE from the government last year, that was not for the purchase of their product? Obviously, you must know this factual information…

    Or, were you talking about tax breaks and not actual money exhanged?

    Honestly, I think that I am talking to children sometimes.

    I have nothing against you personally, but who tells you this stuff?

  124. I notice you completely cut out my request for evidence about you meteorologist claim. Care to actually provide evidence backing up your claims like you keep demanding from everyone else? It is pretty hypocritical to demand I provide evidence to back up my claims in the same post that you cut out and ignored a request for evidence from me.

    Well, we were talking about the poster at the top of this topic. Not providing any evidence to support the claims of that poster is what I was complaining about.

    First, no, you specifically said “deception”, which is not the same thing as “unsubstantiated”. Second, he provided links backing up the claims, so he did provide evidence.

    If I remember correctly, the Heartland budget for last year has become public knowledge. Rather a small sum of money involved.

    Yes, that amongst a bunch of other similar think-tanks. And it wasn’t a small amount, it was about $20 million going to a very small group of people.

    Notice that I have stated that our side of the debate has been about “there are problems with the data” and these problems must be resolved.

    “Actually, that is something that you actually need to prove.”

    “Oil industry funding is given to people who say what the oil industry likes” has been admitted by the oil industry. Click my name. They have cut funding to some groups, but as the article points out they still fund others. Exxon is still funding Heartland, for instance.

    The citizens will pool their support to fund departments such as these, if they are providing the services which are requested. But if citizens do not support those functions, then you will not be provided with those services.

    It is “no longer need our parents (or government) to take care of us” when it is something you don’t like, but “pool their support” if it is something you do. This is blatant hypocrisy.

    Sure, and I have absoluty no problems with the air and water that we are currently sharing in common.

    But people who do have a problem with it (considering it is an emperical fact that there is something wrong with it) are just children needing the government to take care of them, right?

    You always have a choice. If you do not want their product, then simply do not purchase it!

    You cannot live in modern society without purchasing their product either directly or indirectly.

  125. James Evans

    @shunt1:

    How many tax dollars did Exxon ACTUALLY RECEIVE from the government last year, that was not for the purchase of their product? Obviously, you must know this factual information…

    I got a better question. How many billions of dollars annually do American tax payers shell out so that the energy industry avoids footing the bill for externalities?

    Obviously you know this figure, unless you’re too busy being full of your childish self.

    Nothing personal.

  126. @ shunt1 :

    How many tax dollars did Exxon ACTUALLY RECEIVE from the government last year, that was not for the purchase of their product? Obviously, you must know this factual information…

    Or, were you talking about tax breaks and not actual money exhanged?

    Honestly, I think that I am talking to children sometimes.

    I have nothing against you personally, but who tells you this stuff?

    Click my name. The fossil industry received 6 times more in subsidies last year than all of clean energy combined, $409 billion. This article took all of about 10 seconds to find using the encyclopedia of google.

  127. shunt1

    Forget it!

    When you no longer have electricity for your TV or computer, gasoline for your car and the truckers no longer deliver food to your local supermarket…

    Then, we will talk about what was important…

    Just remember, you are the ones that hated the corporations that have kept you alive. The government can not help you, because everything they have came from a corporation.

    Each and every corporation in America should simply CUT YOU OFF!

    Right now, this nation is so close to CW2, that it is disgusting.

    ………..

    Sorry, I should not have lost my temper.

  128. shunt1

    Sorry that I lost my temper….

    $20 million for the Heartland institute is just a dropper of water in Lake Superior compared to the funding received from grants in the support of “global warming” research.

    My problem has always been with the quality of the climate databases, which are controlled by a handful of people. Any research based upon those databases is invalid, if they have not been verified.

  129. Messier Tidy Upper

    @86. Michel :

    Phil, have you thought of writing a book about the evidence for global warming? You certainly have a big part of the homework done .

    I second that suggestion and would certainly love to see it happen. :-)

    Would love to see the Bad Astronomer write a few other books too – perhaps even a best of his blog one with some of his most superluminous articles from here? Please BA? I’d even be delighted to help out by suggesting some of my faves form here for you! ;-)

    @129. Shunt1 : Okay. Its easy enough to do when arguing online as I’ve learnt myself from hard experience. :-(

    I’ve found that, for me anyhow, sometimes its best to take a break, walk away for an hour or two even a day then return and try to keep calm & logical. I’m a long way from perfect myself and all of us are fallible , emotional human beings.

    BTW. What do you mean with the CW2 referenece in your #128 (September 21st, 2012 at 5:54 pm) comment. Not familiar with that acronymn.

    My problem has always been with the quality of the climate databases, which are controlled by a handful of people. Any research based upon those databases is invalid, if they have not been verified.

    But what about the former converted climate skeptic Dr Richard Muller and his BEST project? Don’t you think that verified and confirmed the other studies?

    Is it really just a handful of people controlling (& taking) these climatic measurements? There’s a pretty wide range of sources and methodologies being used to generate climate records and they seem to be producing pretty consistent results and trends.

  130. TheBlackCat

    Keep it up, shunt, those goalposts won’t move themselves.

  131. shunt1

    “Phil, have you thought of writing a book about the evidence for global warming? You certainly have a big part of the homework done .

    I second that suggestion and would certainly love to see it happen. ”

    I FULLY SUPPORT THIS EFFORT!

    ….

    “I’ve found that, for me anyhow, sometimes its best to take a break”

    Agreed and that is why I apologized for loosing my temper.

    “BTW. What do you mean with the CW2 referenece in your #128 (September 21st, 2012 at 5:54 pm) comment. Not familiar with that acronymn. ”

    I hope that you never learn!

    But ask yourself what happened the last time that our country was evenly divived by 50%? This old soldier is in training once again.

  132. James Evans

    When you no longer have electricity for your TV or computer, gasoline for your car and the truckers no longer deliver food to your local supermarket…Just remember, you are the ones that hated the corporations that have kept you alive.

    Wow, I hate them? Really? I thought I just wanted them to pay the fair numbers state officials figured worked out best for all interested parties.

    Anyway, now that you’ve supposedly cooled down, shunt1, do you understand why, if you’re truly devoted to turning Planet Earth into a tax-free wonderland, the boardrooms of Exxon and the rest of the energy industry are the first places you need to pitch your glorious Ayn Rand style every-man-for-himself manifesto? Did TheBlackCat and I at least gain that much ground with you?

    @Messier Tidy Upper:

    CW2 = the second Civil War in the US.

  133. shunt1

    @133. James Evans ”

    “Anyway, now that you’ve supposedly cooled down, shunt1, do you understand why, if you’re truly devoted to turning Planet Earth into a tax-free wonderland, the boardrooms of Exxon and the rest of the energy industry are the first places you need to pitch your glorious Ayn Rand style every-man-for-himself manifesto? Did TheBlackCat and I at least gain that much ground with you?”

    ….

    Personally, I could not care less about Exxon. I purchase a product that I need at the lowest cost possible.

    I have “gone Gault” for over a year now. I absolutly refuse to ever invent another item again.

    My inventions have earned many millions of dollars since I became a Hardware/ Software Engineer in 1974. Proud history, but I will no longer feed the “leaches.”

  134. James Evans

    That’s about as close to a “yes” as I’m likely to get.

  135. shunt1

    @135. James Evans:

    Perhaps you are correct.

    Next time, try actually reading “Atlas Shrugged” (instead of what you were told) and learn what happens when the inventors and creators of wealth go on strike.

    It is not nice when people like you get your way and we refuse to help.

    But by then, we no longer care…

    Let me give you a simple example:

    Genesis hired 100 programmers to compete with my software product. They had the money and marketing skills, so all of our customers switched over to them. We could not sell our software, so I was dismissed with $2000. Two years later, Genesis could not reproduce what I had created, so they purchased my software for $26 million. LEACHES! And out of that $26 million, I got unemployment and a total of $2000.

  136. Fizz

    @115, 116 Shunt1
    Phil deliberately says “this isn’t supposed to be evidence that global warming deniers are paid frauds”. He’s NOT saying that global warmer deniers are frauds.

    He is saying that it is MORE likely that they are denying global warming for their own self-interests than the notion that global warming accepters have a vast global conspiracy.

    In a previous thread, you were the one who suggested a vast global conspiracy, and how they should all be jailed for crimes against humanity. And yet you did not provide any evidence for it. But now, you criticize Phil for not providing evidence, even though he never said there was a conspiracy.

    Read more carefully and have some consistency.

  137. shunt1

    @137. Fizz:

    “He is saying that it is MORE likely that they are denying global warming for their own self-interests than the notion that global warming accepters have a vast global conspiracy. ”

    And that is what got me so upset. Most of the people involved are retired meteorologist that are doing this research on their own, without any money in return.

    The historical climate databases are controlled by a handful of people. All researched based upon those databases will be invalid, if the data has been altered.

    Yes, those that have manipulated the historical data (unless for very well documented reasons) should be charged for crimes against humanity. I will not back down on that statement.

    That is like altering the redshift measurement databases for supernovas, to insure that a specific value of the Hubble constant will be derived. Unless the original database if validated, then all research based upon those values can not be trusted.

    “In a previous thread, you were the one who suggested a vast global conspiracy, and how they should all be jailed for crimes against humanity. And yet you did not provide any evidence for it. But now, you criticize Phil for not providing evidence, even though he never said there was a conspiracy.”

    Oh, I have always been very consistent. Simply compare the specific station records between the different versions of the historical climate databases. What, those older versions are no longer available? Anyone that does have a copy of their original data, “can not be trusted” so you will refuse to even run the data for your own evaluation.

    Nice gimmic, as long as you can get away with it.

    ………….

    “But now, you criticize Phil for not providing evidence, even though he never said there was a conspiracy”

    What was thae graphic poster at the top of this posting? If Phil used that graphic, then he is totally responsible for the message that it implied.

    Oh, I will make a huge poster of that one and place it on my wall. A perfect example of deception.

  138. Fizz

    @138 shunt1
    When i say consistent, i mean in your complaints. You were being a hypocrite- you criticized Phil for something that you yourself have failed to do.

    But you have failed to show any evidence that the historical data has been changed. You keep saying it is, but you never provide evidence for it.

    You also continue to fail to answer what i and others have asked you- have you checked out Dr Richard Muller’s BEST project? He specifically investigates those very questions of data reliability that you continue to bring up. So why don’t you check it out? It’s very easy to find via a google search. Why have you not done so?

    If you can’t change your mind, are you sure you still have one?

  139. Unsettled Scientist

    shunt1 is a conspiracy nut, you’ll never get these people to budge. Don’t write to convince him, just provide accurate information that is real for the the reasonable reader who never comments. He is only here to argue, not increase his or our understanding.

    You actually expect nutjobs to provide evidence for the crap they spout? shunt1 is never going to show evidence that climate datasets are unverifiable and controlled by a small number of people. Of course not when the datasets are freely available on their websites for download to anyone. When the temperature data is collected from national weather services scattered across the globe, and done for the purposes of weather forecasting… climate datasets are collections of multiple people’s work across nations and cultures.

    You can’t address these people directly, only let the common sense reader know that if they wanted they could go download GISTEMP, or they could access the climate model code that was created by people doing “research on their own, without any money in return.” No, he’s not going to link to any of that, because it is not part of his narrative of the world.

    NASA:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Third party implementation
    http://code.google.com/p/ccc-gistemp/

    HadCRU for you Brits
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/

    The others, want satellites like the UAH that was initially used to show no global warming, and then realized they forget to adjust for the orbital decay and then got the same global warming signal as everyone else? You know, John Christy’s stuff…
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/climate-data-links/

    Give the reasonable skeptic access to solid resources like this and let them work it out. deniers and trolls ain’t gonna change.

  140. shunt1

    “But you have failed to show any evidence that the historical data has been changed. You keep saying it is, but you never provide evidence for it. ”

    How can I?

    You and others would refuse to download the actual data and do your own research to see if I was being honest.

    But I know how things have been altered in the historical databases.

    BTW, what is this love affair with Dr. Muller? I know all about his research and how he was warned before he published his last paper.

    Been there, done that. You will refuse to look at the actual raw data. So, I no longer even bother.

    Or as one school teacher posted: “I only read peer (pal) reviewed papers and refuse to view anything else.”

    But tonight, we are talking about Phil’s poster at the top of this topic. If he does consider that someone like Anthony Watts has received millions or even billions of dollars from the “oil industry”, then he has the burdon of proof.

    Seems to me that Phil asked Steve McIntire to share a blog award, to help his book sales a few years ago…

  141. Fizz

    @140 shunt1
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you’re going to claim that the climate data record has been altered with deliberate intent to deceive, then you have the burden of proof. Otherwise, anything you say meaningless. (No more reliable than my claiming i was abducted by aliens from Neptune last night.)

    Actually, i have done a bunch of my own research. I was a skeptic for a long time. And over the last few years i have been doing the research. Not selectively- i’ve been gathering info from both the pro- and anti- higw groups, talking to professors, evaluating the retort to the retort to the retort, etc. It’s a lot of work.

    All you have to do is provide a link. If it’s so obvious that data has been deliberately fixed, it will pick up momentum and everyone will know about it. You could save the world. I told you before- i’m willing to listen. But the burden of proof is on you. Provide the proof, and i’ll look at it.

    As for Muller, who warned him about what? Are you suggesting he was coerced to ‘change his mind’? Do you have evidence of this? If so, post it. It’s always good to question the source.

    You want to go back to the original point of Phil’s point? Fine- where does Phil even mention Anthony Watts? Phil makes no mention of anyone specifically, and yet you’re asking Phil to “prove” it. Stop asking Phil to prove stuff he didn’t say. The only thing “proven” here is that you’re either not reading or not understanding the point of the thread.

    Phil’s post was that the notion that there is a global conspiracy in favor of global warming is ridiculous. Nothing more.

  142. shunt1

    “All you have to do is provide a link.”

    I do not want to hear anything about his methods. The simple fact is that the historical data has been altered, when you compare the exact same stations together from the different versions.

    Request from him a copy of the Version 1 and Version 3 of the Global Historical Climate Network data .

    Here is the link…

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/summary-report-on-v1-vs-v3-ghcn/

    But I know that you will never download the raw data, even if he is nice enough to give you a copy.

    ….

    Sorry, I am starting to loose my temper once again.

    Just download the raw date and evaluate it for yourself!

  143. shunt1

    Oh, and PLEASE try to obtain Version 1, Version 2 and Version 3 of the Global Historical Climate Network data from other sources.

    If you can not obtain them, then you should be asking them WHY NOT?

  144. AJ

    @105. TheBlackCat Says:

    “If you can provide any papers that were not garbage but had this happened, then you might have something…”

    OK, I’ll bring up a member of the NAS (like Dr. Hansen), Dr Roy Spencer (creationist/scientist). His paper was reviewed by a well respected modeler who apparently thought it was worthy of discussion/publication. Dressler’s reply was accepted in an inordinate record time. The editor resigned. Is there bias in the process?

    It’s not that I think that Spencer has been affirmed or that it matters. It thusly demonstrates that an impassioned discourse is highly unlikely. Bias is rampant.

    AJ

  145. TheBlackCat

    Most of the people involved are retired meteorologist that are doing this research on their own, without any money in return.

    I’ve asked you for evidence backing this up twice and you have completely ignored both, once in a post where you responded to everything else but my request for evidence. Yet you repeatedly demand evidence from everyone else. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

    The historical climate databases are controlled by a handful of people. All researched based upon those databases will be invalid, if the data has been altered.

    No, they are controlled by at least a couple dozen meterological agencies from various countries. If you think the datasets have been altered you can compare them to the original data put out by government meterological agencies.

    Of course people unaffiliated with climatology have done this and found nothing wrong, including one previous opponent of AGW. The denialists, on the other hand, after demanding the data be released just ignored it once it was, and viciously attacked their former ally who actually did bother to look at the data after falsely claiming they would support him no matter where the evidence led.

    Oh, I have always been very consistent.

    Yes, consistently applying different standards to yourself than to others, consistently demanding more from others than you are willing to provide yourself.

    Simply compare the specific station records between the different versions of the historical climate databases. What, those older versions are no longer available? Anyone that does have a copy of their original data, “can not be trusted” so you will refuse to even run the data for your own evaluation.

    Go to the source of the data. This data wasn’t collected by climatologists for the most part, it was collected by national meteorological agencies.

    What was thae graphic poster at the top of this posting? If Phil used that graphic, then he is totally responsible for the message that it implied.

    He is not responsible for what you imagine it implied.

    Oh, I will make a huge poster of that one and place it on my wall. A perfect example of deception.

    What?! I asked you before to say exactly what the deception is. You ignored my request and spouted off something irrelevant, and now you make the claim again? How many times are you going to keep demanding people back up their claims before you start doing it yourself?

    Until you start backing up your claims, this conversation is over. I am going to keep asking you to back up your claims until you do so. I will not respond to anything else. I don’t take well to hypocrites.

  146. Tony Long

    101. paul Says:
    September 21st, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Just a nitpick: There doesn’t have to be any conspiracy going on for this sort of thing to work: you simply fund the people who agree with your views.

    That is exactly what is happening Paul and using Occam’s Razor it is a simpler explanation than the infographic from Occupy Posters.

  147. Tony Long

    —-37. TheBlackCat Says:
    —-September 20th, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    —- How convenient for the climate religionists to say that the Arctic is melting and not —-talk about the HUGE elephant in the room… yes, I am talking about the Antarctic. —-Melting or at record high?

    —-*sigh* how many times do we have to go through this? The antarctic ice is largely —-determined by precipitation, which due to global warming is increasing in the area. —-There is a lot of melting happening in the antarctic, but it is offset by increased snowfall.

    —-Nevertheless, many areas of the antarctic are melting and melting quickly.

    —-None of this is a surprise, it is exactly what climatologists expected. Only a denialist —-could make a confirmed prediction of AGW somehow be evidence against AGW.

    ‘TheBlackcat’ should read those papers again on ANTARCTIC PRECIPITATION TO SEA ICE CONCENTRATIONS, as “Precipitation on and near Antarctica increases
    significantly in response to lower sea ice concentrations, and decreases with higher
    concentrations”, so more sea ice means less Precipitation. Many areas of the antarctic are not melting, that again is models you are mixing up with reality.

    FACT: Antarctica has set a record high this week for ice cover.

    Please stop being a denialist about the facts ‘TheBlackcat’ and get your information straight.

  148. Fizz

    @149 Tony Long:
    While it is true that Antarctica recently set a record high for sea ice, it is marginal, and it does not balance what has been lost in the Arctic. But that’s sea ice. The Antarctic has been losing land ice at an increasingly accelerated rate. You can’t lump the two things together. They are different phenomena.

  149. Unsettled Scientist

    Tony Long, please work on your reading comprehension and read the paper you quote again. The sentence immediately after the one you quote reads, “This confirms the hypothesis that, IN A WARMING CLIMATE with less sea ice, increased precipitation may result from ice cover decreases alone.”

    That paper specifically points out that it is confirming a hypothesis of what happens due to global warming. TheBlackCat is correct when he says only a denialist can take a confirmed prediction of global warming and turn it into evidence against global warming.

    Also, I’ll point out that you failed to note the difference between what the TheBlackCat wrote (ice) and what that paper is discussing (sea ice). Antarctic ice is made up of both sea ice and land ice. This is the classic error of omission that denialists use to claim there is an “elephant in the room.” The elephant of course is really the utter ignorance of people using a AGW prediction coming true to deny AGW.

  150. MaDeR

    Thanks for comments, people. I had lately too high amount of faith in humanity. Bunch of Ryan hipocrites, conspiracy nuts, and rethuglican loons properly downed it to nothing.

    Have a nice day.

  151. Messier Tidy Upper

    @134. James Evans Says:

    @Messier Tidy Upper: CW2 = the second Civil War in the US.

    Okay, I guess that makes sense. Cheers.

    Second Civil War? Hmm .. Far as I can recall US history which as an Aussie isn’t something I studied at school, there was only one US Civil War – unless you count the War of Independence or the Indian Wars which don’t quite fit that description do they? So we’re talking about a threatened repeat of the “War of Northern Treachery / Southern Succession” then?

  152. We have something in common! We’re both waiting for back pay from our respective conspiracies. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (secretly run by renegade Objectivist extraterrestrials from Zeta Reticuli) owes me $666.13 for helping to Destroy the Planet, but have I seen any of it? NO!

    If I don’t get paid soon, I’m going over to the Freemasons!

  153. Lab Rat Jason @ #98 said: “Peter… finish the math now. What is the break even point of spending 16k on a car that is only 30% more efficient?”

    Off the top of my head I don’t know. I’m happy to trust you to calculate it and tell me.

    However, please note:

    1. I wanted to point out that your assumptions in your original post were overly pessimistic.

    2. Based on it mpg, I’m guessing the car you currently own is larger than a hatchback. Buying a new hatchback will give you a car which is also easier to park, likely to protect you better in a crash, and is less polluting.

    3. As your current car ages, it’s going to be increasingly expensive to run, so a straight comparison on today’s figures is misleading.

  154. Baron Spindle

    The Bad Astronomy Blog, where deniers come to die. After they’ve gotten their asses handed back to ‘em!

  155. James Evans

    @Messier Tidy Upper:

    Second Civil War? Hmm .. Far as I can recall US history which as an Aussie isn’t something I studied at school, there was only one US Civil War – unless you count the War of Independence or the Indian Wars which don’t quite fit that description do they?

    Correct. We’ve only had one civil war in the States.

    So we’re talking about a threatened repeat of the “War of Northern Treachery / Southern Succession” then?

    Yes. Keep in mind that terms like “War of Northern Aggression” and “War of Southern Independence” were only used by Confederates/Southerners who wanted to keep their slaves and paint the abolitionist North in a bad light, and, today, are used here and there by a select few diehard Confederate sympathizers. Yes, these people are still out there, and it wouldn’t surprise me if, like fundamentalist religious types yearning for the Rapture/Apocalypse/Armageddon/Eschaton/etc., they are the ones stirring up the threat of “CW2.”

  156. James Evans

    FACT: Antarctica has set a record high this week for ice cover.

    Please stop being a denialist about the facts ‘TheBlackcat’ and get your information straight.

    This is my new favorite little bit of denier confusion. Ignorantly (or maybe intentionally) failing to distinguish between Antarctic sea ice and Antarctic land ice and just calling it all “Antarctic ice,” and conflating Antarctic sea ice increase (which, again, you can just magically refer to as “Antarctic ice cover” like it’s all the same to the issue at hand) with the ultimate knock-down, drag-em-out argument against climate change. How many times will we have to address this nonsense before it gets through some very thick skulls that Antarctic sea ice is less important to sea level rise than Antarctic land ice, WHICH IS DECREASING AT AN ACCELERATING RATE, and all Antarctic ice (sea, land, whatever kind you want) is less important to global energy totals than Arctic ice due to albedo/sunlight absorption issues.

    Basically, this is the new denier mantra in a nutshell:

    s9.postimage.org/ihxs2ikzh/ba_penguin00.jpg

  157. Bill

    Had to buy a new car last year, because replacing the transmission in a 1980s Chevy Van simply isn’t financially realistic except maybe if you frequently need a vehicle that large, so I did some actual calculations about what gas mileage is worth. A typical car will last about 200K miles, gas costs will average about $5/gallon over the next decade, so if you get x miles per gallon, you’ll spend about $1M/x on gas over the life of the car. That’s $20K for a 50mpg Prius, $30K for a 33mpg Honda, $50K for a 20mpg SUV, or $90K for an 11mpg BMW.

    (Yes, you can quibble about the accuracy of the numbers, but $1M is a big round shiny number, easy to remember without even the back of an envelope, and maybe gas will only cost $4 but your car will last 250K miles. The BMW will probably last longer, even though my friend bought it used, but 11mpg is what he gets.) So I should have probably bought a Prius a couple of years ago when I started a job with a long commute, and I’d still have a spare van when I needed it. I ended up buying a car in the 33mpg class that cost about $8K less than the Prius, has more comfortable seats, and seemed a bit more useful body shape.

  158. Bill

    The political right-wingers encourage people not to believe in Evolutionary Science, and not to believe in Climate Change Science. While the two issues are connected, and they’re both about getting people to Not Believe Science, the political motivations are much different.

    The politicians don’t really care if you believe in Evolution, though they’ll say whatever it takes to get big voting blocks in the door. The care a LOT about whether you believe in Climate Change, because their corporate sponsors don’t want anybody making legislation that’s going to affect their short-term and medium-term profits. And if that means raising a generation of school kids who don’t know science, there are still going to be enough kids from the blue states who study geology to replace retiring petroleum engineers.

    Think about who all those Red-State voters are – they’re people whose parents or grandparents were farmers who went through the Dust Bowl, and many of them believe in a religion that says we’d better take care of the Earth that God gave us. Better crank up the Don’t Believe Science stuff pretty hard, or some of them are going to want Congress to Do Something to keep their farms from drying up again, and keep their cities from getting washed away in hurricanes like that one Bush let happen.

  159. @117 James Evans: Uh, no, don’t think so. It was you, oh wise jasonB, not me, who initially alerted us all to poor wittle wet-diaper Exxon’s deplorable persecution at the greedy, tax-happy, gouge-athon hands of ruthless state officials. Remember that part? Hmmmmmmm?
    You do NOT get to pin the Crown of Taxation Wisdom on me. No, no, no, little jasonB, of the Omniscient Right-Wing Tax Break Brotherhood. It is YOURS and YOURS ALONE. If you don’t like wearing the crown, and the endless, crushing burden of performing related salvation/shelter/loophole duties, then stop waving it around telling everyone how much you know about taxation fairness.
    ”Wwwwwaaaaa!!!! Someone save us!!!!! We’re being taxed!!!! WWWWWAAAAAAAAA!!!!!”
    ”What is that I hear?! I must sally forth to Exxon’s rescue!!!! Another state thinks it’s allowed to balance the budget!!! I will show them!!! Where’s my trumpet…? Oh, there it is… Dooo-doo-DDDDOOOOOOOOOO!!!!”

    And the Golden Snark award goes to…
    Srsly, I lol’d. True, though.

  160. Nigel Depledge

    Lab Rat Jason (98) said:

    but there are good SOLID reasons to NOT do any of those solutions, and most of it involves other undesireable impact, such as hydroelectric dams preventing fish from reaching spawning grounds, or the cost of lifting space mirrors into orbit.

    Unless you are going to rebut each one individually, you simply cannot support such a claim.

    Some of these options are in use now and are economically viable. And there is no reason why (for example) solar thermal power generation could not be economically viable as soon as the fossil fuel industry is no longer subsidised.

    Hydro plants can be built in such a way to minimise their impact on fish. Unless you consider money to be more inportant than the environment, and more important than millions of human lives, there isn’t a solid reason to not even look into options like the ones I listed. Sure, some of them will turn out not to be viable, for reasons that may well be very good ones, but I think for most of these it is too early to dismiss them out of hand as you seem to do.

  161. Nigel Depledge

    Lab Rat Jason (98) said:

    I know it seems I’m arguing against all these solutions, that’s not the case. I’m encouraged by all the cool ideas, but they need to get better before large numbers of people will go to them.

    In Germany, where microgeneration is relatively widespread due to a law that requires that the grid buy any surplus microgenerated power, several of these options are already in widespread use.

    Hell, even in the UK, which is a cloudy little island most of the time, people are installing photovoltaic cells on their roofs (and these really are an install-it-and-forget-it option, for an expected lifetime of 25 years). And, yes, I do realise that there is government support associated with this to encourage its uptake, but you can be damn sure that the bean-counters in Whitehall have done their sums. Then again, London is one of those cities that would be significantly threatened by rising sea level. There are still people who remember the devastating North-Sea flood of ’53.

    I am going to try to gracefully bow out of this conversation because it really has strayed too far from my original position

    This is, of course, your prerogative.

    which was: Phil, I’d like to see more about solutions.

    But there is no coordinated campaign of misinformation about the solutions for Phil to fight against. Talking about solutions is what is largely happening in Europe (IIUC there is more or less no debate about whather or not AGW is real, as its acceptance is widespread), but in the US there is too much misinformation about whether AGW is even real.

  162. Nigel Depledge

    AJ (104) said:

    First a clarification. If I were to rewrite my comment, it would read “could be biased by group-think, gatekeeping, and grant money. Contrary results could reduce your expected future funding.”

    And this is the exact opposite of how real science typically works. Unexpected results, or results that contradict what was previously held to be probably true, if found to be valid are guaranteed to improve a scientist’s standing in the international community.

    This is why so many particle physicists were hoping that the LHC would find something that wasn’t like the predicted Higgs boson; and why so many physicists got so excited about the earlier announcement from OPERA that neutrinos might travel faster than light. By the same token, the OPERA result was subjected to intense scrutiny – as is right and proper – and was eventually found to be flawed.

    A contrary result is important, because it is a sign that stuff we didn’t previously know about is happening.

    Thus far, the only unexpected results that climatologists have been getting are that the actual warming we observe is a bit more than was predicted about 25 years ago.

    This opinion is based on what I’ve seen over the last few years.

    From what sources?

    Is this what you have garnered from the actual climate scientists? If not, then from whom?

    An influential group of like-minded scientists seem to readily accept papers that conform with their view. Papers that do not conform seem to have higher hurdles to clear and, if they somehow do, then “corrective” action is taken (e.g. getting science editors fired).

    And, without evidence (actual instances of papers being rejected or modified simply because they did not toe the “party line”, and examples of substandard papers being accepted because they did), this is nothing more than speculation.

    It’s just my perception of how the business works.

    And it is an example of how well the anti-AGW side knows how to exploit the media.

    How much effort have you made to find out if your perception matches reality?

  163. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (116) trolled:

    Most people on the “there are problems with this data” have been retired meteorologists and have done their research with minimal financial support.

    And with zero expertise in climatology. Meteorology is a different (albeit related) discipline.

    It would be analogous to me (a biochemist) criticising research in organic chemistry – the fields are related, but I just don’t know enough organic chemistry to form a valuable opinion.

    The other side has received government and university funding.

    And guess what they spent it on? Doing science.

    Do you see climate scientists driving around in flashy expensive cars? No. Do you see them taking month-long holidays in the Seychelles? No. Do you see them living in 8-bedroom mansions? No.

    OTOH, since the anti-AGW crowd doesn’t actually do any science (apart from those unqualified amateurs you mentioned), all the money paid to the think-tanks goes on PR campaigns, so the output is slick, flashy and superficially convincing. There’s plenty of noise in Washington, too, as there are congresscritters who are happy to accept large campign donations from oil, coal and power companies in return for protecting those industries in their constituencies.

  164. shunt1

    PLEASE try to obtain Version 1, Version 2 and Version 3 of the Global Historical Climate Network data from any source that you can trust.

    Compare each individual station between the different versions.

    By definition, if the Global Historical Climate Netwark databases have not been altered, then the values obtained by each individual station will exactly match between each version.

    Yes, each version of the GHCN will have a different mix of stations, but that is not the problem that I have been talking about. There will only be a subset between the different databases which share individual stations in common.

    Please obtain your own copy of these historical databases and see if the reported values actually match between the different versions. Warning: trying to match stations together will be a challenge, but if you work hard enough on the task, it can be done.

    It does not matter if you have a Ph.D in climate science or any other formal college education. All that is required, is the simple ability to match three numbers together among the different historical databases.

  165. shunt1

    Last year’s budget provided $2.0 billion for the climate science program, a figure that doesn’t include the half a billion in stimulus money that the White House directed to global warming, as Obama’s science adviser recently told Congress.

    From the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ocp2011.pdf

    Remember, this is only what was spent by the United States federal government in 2011.

    Side note:

    I would also like to remind you that oil companies like Exxon receive a percentage of the sales price of their product. The more expensive the government makes it, the more profits they make.

    So, why would oil companies want to fight the government’s price increases? That is simply not logical.

  166. shunt1

    Read that report from the White House…

    “The FY 2011 budget requests $2.7 billion for USGCRP
    programs—an increase of about 24% over the FY
    2010 level.4 This increase reflects the expanded needs
    discussed above and represents a commitment by
    the Obama Administration to the USGCRP.”

    (From page 3)

    It will take me some time to do the research, but step by step, I will prove that everything on that poster (at the top of this topic) was false.

    Kinda wish those oil companies would send me a paycheck for my time and effort.
    Snicker…

  167. shunt1

    “Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying. And those who do tend to be caught by the peer-review process.”

    I agree with that statement, but then Phil had to qualify it:

    “…no, Climategate and its sequel don’t count..”

    When Climategate exposed their own emails, those documents demonstrated exactly that type of activity among the scientists involved.

    ….

    Please quit acting like a defense lawyer protecting a guilty client. Remember what a scientist is all about and demand quality data.

  168. shunt1

    OFF TOPIC, but Phil was interested in High Powered Rocketry:

    I do not know Phil’s personal email, or I would have sent him this in private.

    But if interested, it would be great to show what a bunch of “old farts” growing up during the Apollo years have learned and achieved with small personal budgets.

    You will be more than welcomed!

    shunt1:
    huntworksteve@gmail.com

    …………………

    OKTOBERFEST

    NCR’s Oktoberfest Fall launch has become a popular, must attend event for many model and high power rocketry enthusiasts in Colorado and throughout the Rocky Mountain West. With good people, great weather, 96,000 acres of recovery area and a 20,000′ AGL standing waiver, Oktoberfest appeals to flyers of all capabilities. Pads are available for launching everything from 1/4A Micromax NAR contest flights on up through the alphabet 200# O-powered birds on experimental motors. Oktoberfest has become a world-class event attracting flyers from all over the country. Beginning in 2007, Sunday of the event will be held by NCR as a Research Launch Day under Tripoli Research Rules*, allowing experimental motors and significantly higher power than is readily available from certified motors. Once you’ve flown with us at Oktoberfest, you’ll plan on coming back again and again and again.

    The Event

    This year, Oktoberfest is back to its traditional dates of the first full weekend in October. Got a special project planned? We’d sure like to know about it in advance to make the necessary pad arrangements.

    Dates: Friday October 5th thru Monday October 8th

    Range Schedule:

    · Friday, October 5th- 10AM until 6PM – Certified motors only!

    · Saturday, October 6th- 8AM until 6PM – Certified motors only!

    · Sunday, October 7th- 8AM until 3PM – Tripoli Rules*

    · Monday, October 8th- 8AM until 2PM – Tripoli Rules*

    These hours are subject to change with due cause based upon local weather or fire conditions or at the request of the Forest Service, FAA or Weld County officials. Please Note – Sunday and Monday are Tripoli sanctioned launches. You MUST be a Tripoli member in order to fly.

    *Tripoli Rules allow ONLY Tripoli members.

    Fees:

    Flyer fees remain unchanged from 2005.

    NCR Members -$10 Non-Members -$25*

    *Non-members of NCR are offered a special membership deal. $25 for Oktoberfest and an additional $25 gives you a full years membership in NCR, a $10 savings.

    Click here for Registration Form and Instructions!!!

    Parking

    As always, parking needs to be within 100′ from the edge of Road 45 in a straight line and at least 100′ back from the flight line. Do not park or drive on the road east to the Windmill. Please be courteous while parking and leave room for others. Park head-in and behind the yellow rope. Make sure you do not block the vendor area or the central flight line and Administration Tent area as this area is reserved for vendors and event management.

    Pre-registration

    We’d like to strongly encourage pre-registration. Please print out the registration form HERE and send it in with a check for your flyer fee to the address on the form. Checks should be made out to Northern Colorado Rocketry. For signing up early, you’ll get two free raffle tickets when you check in. Pre-registration forms must be received by the last Friday in September to qualify. When you get to Oktoberfest, go to the Registration Table to pick up your flyer’s wristband and raffle tickets.

    Onsite Registration

    Of course you’ll be able to register onsite as well. After finding a parking place, walk on down to the Administration Tent to sign in and pay your flyer’s fee. ALL flyers are required to wear a wristband indicating they have registered and paid. NO ONE FLIES WITHOUT REGISTERING!

    The Site

    The area that is now the Pawnee National Grassland was originally acquired by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service) during the 1930’s “dustbowl” days, was transferred to the Forest Service in 1954, and was designated a National Grassland in 1960.

    TREAD Lightly. Travel and recreate with minimum impact. Respect the environment and the rights of others. Educate yourself, plan and prepare before you go. Allow for future use of the outdoors by leaving it better than you found it. Discover the rewards of responsible recreation.

    As our preferred launch site, Oktoberfest is being held at NCR’s Pawnee North launch site – Latitude 40 degrees, 52 Minutes North, Longitude 104 Degrees 37 Minutes West. Ground elevation is 5,430′

    Site Considerations

    Recovery Area

    Sitting in the midst of over 96,000 acres of potential recovery area, NCR’s Pawnee – North Site lies on rolling short grass prairie. Aside from the occasional sagebrush, rabbitweed, or stand of grass, there is little of anything more than 4′ high apart from the windmills and fence posts scattered around the area. We strongly recommend dual-deployment for flights to significant altitude. You may drive ONLY on the existing main roads. If your rocket lands at some distance from the launch site, you MUST park on the road, and then WALK to recover your rocket. Recovery is by FOOT travel ONLY!!! No vehicle traffic is permitted off road.

    Weather

    The weather in Colorado varies by elevation, as well as by season. Be prepared for sudden changes in temperatures, cool nights and possible afternoon rain showers. Average temperatures on the prairie range from highs in the 50’s to 70’s with lows in the 30’s to 40’s. Weather at NCR’s Pawnee launch site is usually very pleasant with clear Colorado skies and mild temperatures. As with most places inm the west, high winds are occasionally a problem. It is strongly advised to stake and guy out any tents or sunshades you set up to prevent them from ending up in Nebraska or in a ragged pile of broken poles and torn fabric.

    Camping and Lodgings

    Camping is permitted right on the flight line. You may bring RV’s, tent trailers or set up any kind of tent or whatever you wish. Keep in mind the need to be fair about taking up space on the main flight line for a large camp. Please establish those out towards the ends of the flight line. No camping or vehicle parking is permitted on the West side of the road. Also, keep in mind that ALL vehicles and camping MUST be behind no more than 100′ from the edge of the road.

    The nearest motels are in Wellington, CO, Cheyenne, WY, and Fort Collins, CO.

    Fires

    The Forest Service allows us a single fire pit at the site which we must clean up at the end of the event. All other fires or barbecues must be elevated well above the ground to prevent charring and sterilization of the soil. Firewood is nonexistent on the prairie so contributions are welcome. In the evenings, the fire is frequently the center of social activity. Join us there! PLEASE!!! NO GLASS OR TRASH in the fire pit!

    What to Bring

    Water – At least a gallon per person per day for drinking. There is NO water available on site.

    Sunglasses – It IS bright out there. People have become glare blind after a full day out in the sun. (not actual blindness, but like snowblindness, feels as if your eyes have been filled with sand.)

    Sunscreen – The sun here is intense at 5430′ and you WILL burn a lot quicker than you think. Bring plenty of sunscreen.

    Food – We recommend you bring all the food and snacks you will need as stores and restaurants are all more than 30 minutes away. There will likely be a hot dog vendor and perhaps a burrito vendor onsite during the day on Saturday, but for the other days you must be prepared to feed yourself.

    Other Useful Stuff

    Binoculars, GPS unit, FRS radios, EZ-Up sunshade or similar, chairs.

    What NOT to Bring

    PLEASE, don’t bring pets, fireworks, firearms, explosives, or illegal drugs. Alcohol use is restricted to the hours after flight operations have ceased for the day. We ask parents and caregivers to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to bring small children (or the old, infirm or disabled) to this event as some of the rockets are large and powerful enough that they could cause serious injury or death in the event of an accident. Attendees should be able to be fully mobile and aware of their surroundings in the event it becomes necessary to move rapidly away from a falling or malfunctioning rocket.

    Sanitation and Trash

    Port-a-Potties are provided for your convenience. Please don’t use them for anything but their intended contents. Do not throw trash or other materials into them.

    There are NO large trash receptacles provided. As is typical with self-sufficient camping on most public lands, YOU are responsible for taking ALL of your trash out with you. If you bring it, take it with you when you leave. Please clean up your parking and prep area before you leave. Help keep the prairie clean of micro-trash and rocketry debris.

    Water

    Bring enough water for you and all of your activities as there is none available at the site. We highly recommend an allowance of at least 1 gallon per person per day for drinking as the dry climate will dehydrate you far more quickly than you can imagine.

    Other Services

    There are no services whatsoever at the site that you can count on. A Hot Dog vendor and perhaps a burrito stand will be there during the day on Saturday, but you should plan on taking care of your own needs. The nearest gas stations are in Ault (Colorado Highway 14 and 85) or Wellington (US I-25) or in Cheyenne, Wyoming, (US I-25 and US 80) about 25 miles away by paved road.. And the nearest large convenience stores are also found in Ault, Wellington or Cheyenne.

    Contests and the Oktoberfest Raffle

    Similar to our other big event, Mile Hi Mayhem, NCR sponsors a contest or two specifically for this event and we also hold a raffle with a wide range of rocketry oriented prizes.

    Vendors have donated a pile of great prizes to our raffle. From rocket kits to motor cases, DVD’s and reloads to t-shirts, there are plenty of great prizes “up for grabs”. We’ll be pulling winning tickets throughout Oktoberfest and posting the winners on the board at the Registration table. Raffle tickets are just $1 or 6 for $5 and can be bought at the Registration table. Pre-register for Oktoberfest by September 21st and get two tickets free.

    Vendors

    As always, NCR’s big events attract an increasing number of rocketry vendors selling kits, supplies, rocket motors and reloads. If you expect to need larger motors and reloads, we suggest you contact your favorite vendor soon and place your order to ensure your motors and reloads are available in time for Oktoberfest.

    Giant Leap Rocketry – our Colorado Giant Leap rep will be on hand with an inventory of both Aerotech and Cesaroni reloads. Giant Leap is one of the larger suppliers in the country of High Power rocketry supplies and motor reloads. Pre-orders for motors are encouraged

    Photos By Nadine – Nadine is very well known throughout the high power rocketry community. Her amazing rocketry photographs have been featured in rocketry magazines and calendars. We’re lucky that Nadine Kinney lives near us and has attended NCR’s Mile High Mayhem and Oktoberfest launches since their inception. Her photos are superb – ‘nuf said.

    Rocket Garden – Bryan shows up at most NCR launches bringing his trailer full of model rocket supplies, model and mid power kits and rocket motors – primarily Estes and Aerotech single use motors up through G impulse

    CoolRocketryStuff.com – Jon Skuba is an NCR club member and the Colorado distributor for RoadRunner motors. Jon also vends a huge assortment of motor mounts for clusters and the hard to find hardware we all need.

    More Event Information

    Certifications

    If you intend to certify at Oktoberfest, you will need to make your arrangements in advance. If you are a member of NAR, you will want to have your cert team assembled prior to bringing your rocket and flight card to the LCO’s desk for check-in. If you are a member of TRA and wish to certify, you will need to make arrangements with a Tripoli Prefect or a TAP member. Level 3 TRA and NAR certs will require your TAP or L3CC Team to be notified and present, so be sure you make your arrangements in advance. Motors for L2 certifcations will almost certainly be available on-site from a variety of vendors. However, NCR recommends that you contact your preferred vendor ahead of time to ensure availability of the specific motor you’re planning on – particularly for 54mm or larger motors. Early ordering and arrangements are strongly recommended if you expect your motor to be there on time.

    Hybrid Motor Fees:

    ALL Hybrid flights must be pre-arranged to assure ground support and gas availability. In addition to the flyer fee which ALL flyers must pay, NCR also charges for hybrid flights, based upon the amount of nitrous used.

    Hybrid Motor Impulse Class
    Nitrous Fee

    G and under
    Free`

    H
    $4

    I
    $6

    J
    $8

    K
    $10

    L
    $15

    M
    $20

    N or larger
    Fee adjusted based upon relative amount of nitrous oxide used. See LCO or go to the Administration tent for details.

    This year, NCR has special launch cards for hybrid flights. This is a bright yellow/green card with the same information that is on a regular flight card plus a checkbox for each impulse class of hybrid motor and the fee charged. These cards are only available from the launch registration table and will be given to you AFTER payment of the nitrous fee. You must have one of these special flight cards before you can hook up to the hybrid GSE at the pad. You MUST reserve your hybrid flights with NCR by October 1st in order to be assured of sufficient Nitrous Oxide for your flight(s). Reserved flights have precedence and no one who has not reserved NOX will be allowed on the pad until all reserved flights have flown. Contact Ed Dawson at equipment@ncrocketry.org or volunteer@ncrocketry.org, Warren Musselman at webmaster@ncrocketry.org or Joe Hinton at president@ncrocketry.org.

    It should be noted that this fee covers one flight attempt – If the rocket is removed from the pad for any reason, the flyer must pay the fee again. (This will be waived if the flyer doesn’t fill the motor with nitrous before removing it from the pad.) While the fee does allow for a reasonable attempt at flight including a reasonable number of fills or purges, the final determination if additional fees are to be charged due to multiple fill attempts is at the discretion of the LCO and Launch Director.

    Other Good Stuff

    Of course, like any other NCR launch we expect this to be a heck of a fun time for everyone. Oktoberfest will be an event worth attending. Some things worth thinking about:

    Stargazing – As at previous events, a number of folks bring out their telescopes to take advantage of some of the best dark-sky conditions in Colorado. If you have a scope, by all means bring it out. If the clouds are cooperative, we’ll have some great cosmic viewing with great dark skys!.

    Disclaimer

    NCR abides by the rules of the NAR and TRA Safety Codes. Since the majority of our flyers are certified for High Power and are expected to know and use appropriate building and flying techniques, all common sense rules for HPR launches apply. The LCO, RSO and Launch Director have the FINAL say in whether your flight will be permitted. We ask each flyer to know their rocket and motor, to check in with the RSO prior to flight and to follow best practices for safety when preparing the rocket and loading it on the pad. A completed flight card is required for each flight listing ALL pertinent information regarding the rocket. In addition, complex projects (clusters, multi-stage rockets, air-starts, etc.) and rockets with questionable stability MUST be cleared with the Flight Director and RSO prior to heading for the pad – please inform the LCO that this is a “Heads-Up” flight so it may be announced as such to the other flyers and spectators.

    Safety First! NCR makes every effort to ensure the safety of all participants and spectators. Rocketry is not a zero risk endeavor. By participating in Oktoberfest as either a flyer OR as a spectator, you are accepting the risks inherent to the hobby and you acknowledge that you assume full financial risk for participating or attending the event.

    Please note, NCR and its executive board and membership are NOT responsible for you. YOU are solely responsible for your safety and for following all aspects of the NAR and TRA safety codes.

    CONCLUSION

    NCR welcomes you to Oktoberfest and we hope you will be able to attend the best Fall launch in the Rocky Mountain West. We look forward to seeing you out on the range.

  169. shunt1

    Sorry about the OFF TOPIC, but if Phil enjoyed Space Camp in Huntsville, then he would love to attend this event.

    Know what is the most thrilling? The SOUND!

    This year, I have a new rocket to test. Total cost to me was about $800 and I will make my first two flights sub-sonic to insure that the GPS and electronics work correctly. If everything works as expected, then I may make my attempt for 20,000 ft.

    When you get above the speed of sound, then the barometric altimeter can not be relied upon. That is when the electronics must switch over to the accelerometers. GPS is totally useless at those speeds, but when the rocket is decending under a parachute, it allows me to track where it will land. Often, up to 5 or 10 miles away for high altitude flights.

    Once again, sorry about something totally OFF TOPIC, but I wanted to let Phil know that he was invited.

  170. Lee

    Perhaps the biggest fault out of several with this poster is that it presents only two parties in this scenario: oil companies and relatively grassroots activism. This completely omits the single biggest funding contributor: the federal government. Guess what they fund? millions of pounds / dollars are sent to universities and other research institutions, billions are spent on other projects such as solar farms in the form of subsidies.

    Waving a hand and declaring that the omitted funding doesn’t count because it went to science as opposed to propaganda is cute, but disingenuous.

  171. James Evans

    @Lee:

    This completely omits the single biggest funding contributor: the federal government. Guess what they fund?

    Energy industry subsidies.

    And to a greater degree than the other recipients you bring up, as has been mentioned several times in this thread.

    Waving a hand and declaring that the omitted funding doesn’t count because it went to science as opposed to propaganda is cute, but disingenuous.

    Ignoring the billions given to fossil fuel companies, while fixating on institutions that receive less handouts from taxpayers but rub you the wrong way politically is, at this point in the discussion, cute, disingenuous, and tiresome.

    Lee, you need to pay more attention to previous comments. Your points have been addressed ad nauseum.

  172. I love the claim that scientists are in it to bolster their grant funding, as if their grants are dependent on a warming climate. They are climate scientists. They research the climate, whatever the hell it is doing, and their grants are based on the quality (and quantity) of their work, not on one specific direction of study.
    Climatologists don’t need climate change to get funding. They need to do research to get funding. And guess what that research overwhelmingly points to…

  173. Messier Tidy Upper

    @ ^ Bipedal Tetrapod : Good point and seconded by me. :-)

    Plus as I think has been noted before already any climatologist who can convincingly show that HIRGO is wrong would likely win a Nobel prize as well as major fame and fortune if they could actually make an evidence based scientifically overwhelming case.

    @158. James Evans wrote :

    @Messier Tidy Upper: “Second Civil War? Hmm .. Far as I can recall US history which as an Aussie isn’t something I studied at school, there was only one US Civil War – unless you count the War of Independence or the Indian Wars which don’t quite fit that description do they?” – MTU
    Correct. We’ve only had one civil war in the States.
    “So we’re talking about a threatened repeat of the “War of Northern Treachery / Southern Succession” then? “- MTU
    Yes. Keep in mind that terms like “War of Northern Aggression” and “War of Southern Independence” were only used by Confederates/Southerners who wanted to keep their slaves and paint the abolitionist North in a bad light, and, today, are used here and there by a select few diehard Confederate sympathizers. Yes, these people are still out there, and it wouldn’t surprise me if, like fundamentalist religious types yearning for the Rapture/Apocalypse/Armageddon/Eschaton/etc., they are the ones stirring up the threat of “CW2.”

    Thanks for that elaboration and, yeah, fair point on the “War of Northern Aggression” thing I jokingly half recalled.

    @ Lab Rat Jason & anyone else still interested in possible solutions – the latest issue of New Scientist magazine (22nd September 2012) has a cover story on geoengineering – “plans to cool the planet” (pages 30-35 by Stephen Battersby) – which may be interesting and worth reading. :-)

    If anyone’s still reading at this late stage in the thread? ;-)

  174. Nigel Depledge

    MTU (176) said:

    If anyone’s still reading at this late stage in the thread?

    You should know me by now!

  175. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (171) said:

    I do not know Phil’s personal email,

    How hard did you look?

    In the sidebar, under “About BadAstronomy”, it says:

    Contact me: The Bad Astronomer “at” gmail “dot” com

  176. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (139) said:

    And that is what got me so upset. Most of the people involved are retired meteorologist that are doing this research on their own, without any money in return.

    This is an out-and-out lie.

    Most of the anti-AGW “talking points” come not from retired meteorologists, but from conservative think-tanks and politicians, many of whom are in the pockets of the fossil-fuel and energy industries.

    If I felt you were worth the effort, I’d look it all up and do the research, but since you repeatedly refuse to back up your claims with anything remotely resembling evidence, I simply cannot be bothered. You are not worth that much of my time.

  177. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (167) said:

    By definition, if the Global Historical Climate Netwark databases have not been altered, then the values obtained by each individual station will exactly match between each version.

    What, you think they should not correct errors when errors are found?

  178. Nigel Depledge

    Shunt1 (1690 said:

    It will take me some time to do the research, but step by step, I will prove that everything on that poster (at the top of this topic) was false.

    What, and you think $2.7 billion is anything but small change beside the combined profits of the largest industry in the world?

    The graphic makes no factual claims – it proposes two scenarios and asks which is more credible. Or did you not read the actual graphic?

  179. shunt1 said (170):
    September 24th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Phil: “Scientists as a rule tend to abhor misleading people or out-and-out lying. And those who do tend to be caught by the peer-review process.”

    I agree with that statement, but then Phil had to qualify it:

    Phil: “…no, Climategate and its sequel don’t count..”

    When Climategate exposed their own emails, those documents demonstrated exactly that type of activity among the scientists involved…

    This is a lie.
    Put up or shut up. You have read the emails, right?
    So…where’s the results? What work was tampered with? Name it. Be as specific as you like.
    (…crickets chirping…)
    What peer-reveiwed paper was denounced as an actual fraud? Name it. Be as specific as you like.
    (…crickets chirping…)
    Climategate was a sham from start to finish.
    It was all innuendo, vague handwaving and quotemining.
    Shame on you for promoting a deceptive smear and shame on you for ignoring the multiple, independent investigations done by the grown-ups.

    Climate deniers: Making 9/11 Troofers looking smart by comparison.

    Unwinding “Hide the Decline”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us

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 »