Remember James Inhofe, global warming denialist extraordinaire?
Well, everybody ought to read Dana Milbank’s sad account from a few days back of Inhofe’s increasing marginalization, even among his GOP peers–and of his increasing shrillness as this occurs.
Given his track record, at this point it seems unlikely that Inhofe will ever admit that global warming is real and human caused. But with this intransigence, he is certainly threatening his own legacy and how he is remembered.Milbank’s words capture it well: “It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther….”
His whole piece can be read here.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
“It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther….”
This metaphor would only make sense if the flat-earthers had on their side a well-funded, industry-sponsored lobby trying to cast doubt on the scientific consensus of Global Oblate Spheroidism. I don’t think Inhofe is too lonely – he’s got a lot of friends in rich places.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
he’s got a lot of friends in rich places
Here’s one:
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/coal-executive-slams-climate-science/
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Yes, Mr. Inhofe has become almost pathetic in his continued protests. The global denial crowd is just as loud and insistent as ever, and they have managed to create some doubt in the minds of some people, but the non-scientists who take the time to read the science with an open mind are all coming around to accepting what the scientists have been saying for years. It’s a sign of just how anti-intellectual this society is that a scientific hypothesis that is so widely accepted by scientists and endorsed by the most reliable scientific institution in this country — the National Academy of Sciences — is nevertheless rejected by a bunch of know-nothings. I have discussed this issue with these people many times and they flatly refuse to learn any real science. They have their talking points straight from the denier websites and they have no interest in actually understanding the science. They mindlessly spout their prefabricated text and, if you challenge them, they simply change the subject. I have seen this behavior over and over. In particular, when I hit them with the question “Do you think you’re more knowledgeable than the scientists in the National Academy of Sciences?” they dissimulate, mumble, or change the subject.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Kerry: “we invented wind”. Please tell me that was meant as a joke! I’m sure a statement like that would drive Inhofe nuts.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Inhofe is a nutcase, but I also find the general reaction to “Superfreakonomics” alarming. On this blog the authors have often and productively argued that extreme reactions and condescension prevent meaningful dialog and tend to silence even reasonable critics. Yet I find people like Joe Romm doing the same, using more bluster and condescension than quiet, rational debate to critique the authors of the book. I actually read the chapter from the book and sure, in some places it’s clear that the authors could have done more research, but unlike what Romm and others would have us believe, I never found their tone to be that of sensationalist, loud-mouthed, contrarian deniers.
I find this rather vociferous and combative reaction against even reasonable critics of global warming rather disquieting and unproductive. All it will do is make sensible critics of the details shut up and thwart reasonable conversation.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
4. Duane Says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Kerry: “we invented wind”. Please tell me that was meant as a joke! I’m sure a statement like that would drive Inhofe nuts.
No, I’m pretty sure it was shorthand for “wind power,” just as people sometimes use “coal” or “nuclear” as “solar” without the word “power” but still mean “coal power” or “nuclear power” or “solar power.”
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Cap & Tax is dead in the water and sinking. The current run of now 11 years of increasing global cooling will put that power grab at the bottom of the political sea. The harsh winter of 2008-2009 will seal the case.
Inhofe is no more a nut case than Al Gore. Both are politicians, and completely unworthy of any scientific authority. I’m not a right-wing loon, but this balderdash of man-made CO2 global warming is finally being shown up for the total political crap that it has always been.
‘Consensus’ is not a valid scientific concept, and is a propagandistic lie in the case of man made global warming in any event. The IPCC model has been invalidated by real-time events and measurements. It is pretty evident to open-minded, non-politicized scientists that the earth is cooling off, and not heating up. This is not a mere fluctuation, but rather a CYCLE that has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. The fact that untold billions of tons of hydro-carbons have been dumped into the atmosphere in the last 11 years and the average global temps have dropped EVERY YEAR should be proof enough. Of course it’s not proof to those whose religious and political prejudices overwhelm their common and scientific sense.
It’s hopeless to get people to think for themselves anymore, as they take a side just to prove their superior intellectual and moral attributes, but this subject has been politicized into a dense morass. I just suggest that folks do their own research with an open mind.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
7. Michael Says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
The fact that untold billions of tons of hydro-carbons have been dumped into the atmosphere in the last 11 years and the average global temps have dropped EVERY YEAR should be proof enough.
___________
“I’ve been smoking a pack a day for thirty years and don’t have lung cancer. This is proof positive that cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.”
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“The current run of now 11 years of increasing global cooling will put that power grab at the bottom of the political sea.”
Talking about a “current run of now 11 years” in climatology is no less absurd than talking about a “current run of 11 microseconds in economics”. Eleven years is a meaningless amount of time in climatology.
” Both are politicians, and completely unworthy of any scientific authority.”
I agree. But would you not agree that the National Academy of Science DOES have oodles of scientific authority?
“‘Consensus’ is not a valid scientific concept”. You’re quite wrong here. I suggest you read “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. It’s the classic in the field of how science works.
“The IPCC model has been invalidated by real-time events and measurements.” No, it has not; the incoming torrent of data is all in pretty good conformance with the dozen or so climate models to which the IPCC refers. Perhaps you are confusing weather with climate; climate models make no localized predictions either spatially or temporally. If the weather in Peoria gets colder tonight, that does not invalidate any of the climate models.
“It is pretty evident to open-minded, non-politicized scientists that the earth is cooling off, and not heating up. ” Not at all. The only person who could draw such a conclusion is one who subordinates scientific evidence to political preference. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that the AGW is real.
“This is not a mere fluctuation, but rather a CYCLE that has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.” No, it is not. The Milankovich cycle is much shorter, and there are no known cycles exceeding a million years in duration.
” The fact that untold billions of tons of hydro-carbons have been dumped into the atmosphere in the last 11 years and the average global temps have dropped EVERY YEAR should be proof enough.” No, it is not. Remember, climate is not weather. You can pump billions of dollars of fiscal stimulus into the economy and the fact that output continues to drop for 11 days does not mean that your fiscal stimulus accomplished nothing; it takes longer than 11 days for a fiscal stimulus to affect the economy. And it takes more than 11 years for CO2 to affect the climate.
“Of course it’s not proof to those whose religious and political prejudices overwhelm their common and scientific sense.” You have scientific sense? Are you prepared for me to quiz you about the science behind AGW?
“I just suggest that folks do their own research with an open mind.” Start with yourself. Have you actually read the IPCC AR4? Have you read any of the NAS statements on climate change? If so, could you specify where you differ with the NAS, and why you believe that your scientific judgement is superior to that of the most eminent scientists in this country?
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
“This is not a mere fluctuation, but rather a CYCLE that has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. “
Arctic Sediments Show That 20th Century Warming Is Unlike Natural Variation
ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2009) — The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published October 19.
“It is pretty evident to open-minded, non-politicized scientists that the earth is cooling off, and not heating up. “
Statisticians Reject Global Cooling
WASHINGTON (AP) — Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book. Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.
The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs?
In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
—- The harsh winter of 2008-2009 will seal the case. Michael
The harsh winter here came with the second hellish ice storm that has happened here in about a decade, an ice storm of a kind that was extremely unusual for this area because it would have typically been cold enough for the ice to have been snow.
The global warming denialists are stooges for the oil or coal industry like Inhofe, media liars bought and paid for by the same or their pals or they are the idiots who believe the liars for hire who are the rot in our democracy.
And global warming isn’t the only evidence that Inhofe is a psychopath.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
The global warming denialists aren’t well informed about science. They have that much in common with the creationists. It is remarkable to talk to such people and find them recycling the same tired old refuted arguments again and again forever. Such people are well beyond the reach of evidence and reasoned arguments so it is best to simply bypass them and leave them to rant with each other in their extremist irrelevance.
It is unfortunate, though, that humankind passed the Point of No Return a long time ago. Climate Change is very much like approaching a cliff: human free will remains relevant only up to the edge of the abyss, beyond that gravity takes over and humankind’s desperate wishes becomes irrelevant. Something really terrible is already happening on the Earth and it is only a matter of time before the full magnitude of the radical change becomes evident, rendering all efforts to avoid a horrendous fate too little – too late.
Our civilization isn’t sustainable under any circumstance. Peak Oil and climate change will deliver the death blow to technological civilization. Humankind’s survival isn’t guaranteed. Nature can afford to lose another primate species. Humankind is the very last of its kind for a reason and as such this does not speak well for the long-scale survival of our species against the challenge of radical climate change.
For that reason, I suppose that humankind is altogether a lost cause. What humankind destroyed in its haste Nature will repair at her leisure. Nature has survived bigger catastrophes in the past so the survival of life on the Earth is guaranteed. The failure of humankind is a tragedy, of a sort, but within the history of Nature the Sixth Great Extinction will be just another day in the history and travails of life on the Earth.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:55 pm
7. Michael Says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Cap & Tax is dead in the water and sinking. The current run of now 11 years of increasing global cooling will put that power grab at the bottom of the political sea. The harsh winter of 2008-2009 will seal the case.
_____________
Whatever the Heartland Institute is paying you for this is WAY too much. Granted, you got in the “Al Gore is a nutcase” talking point, the “we’re actually global cooling” talking point, the “thousands of scientists disagree with global warming” talking point, and the “last winter was the coldest winter on record” talking point. And you did nail the “cap and tax” buzzword on the first sentence.
But otherwise your troll attempt was a weak, incoherent ramble lacking in both style and substance. Sorry, but I’m just not feeling it. Where was the criticism of Al Gore’s fleet of private planes and his monthly $250,000 power bill? Where was the connection to George Soros and the global Communist/UN/ACORN takeover of the world’s energy distribution system?
Where was the thoroughly debunked refutation of the “hockey stick” graph? Or the point about warming on Mercury/Mars/Jupiter/Pluto/Ceres/Fomalhaut b? What about the fact that ice cores show CO2 rise following temperature rise, or that snow is increasing in parts of Antarctica – these debunked points don’t even get a mention?
And seriously – would it have killed you to call us all arrogant for thinking that we puny humans – who are neither God nor Jesus – have in our puny human hands the power to destroy and/or save the world?
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. You should be ashamed to even CALL yourself a science denier.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Thanks, toasterhead. Not bad. If I could add one: In addition to using electricity, Al Gore exhales carbon dioxide.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
The harsh winter of 2008-2009 will seal the case.
How Northern Hemi-centric you are.
Cold weather doesn’t prove anything
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Seems the troll accomplished what he set out to achieve. He put 8 commenters to work who had to spend their time correcting him. That’s what tends to happen in these “debates” and that’s how these denialists seem to waste everyone’s time and declare victory.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
16. Sorbet Says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
That’s what tends to happen in these “debates” and that’s how these denialists seem to waste everyone’s time and declare victory.
They win either way. If we spend our time fighting their crap with facts, they waste our time and declare victory. If we ignore them, they say we can’t respond to their arguments and declare victory. That’s the benefit of not having to rely on facts – you win no matter what the score is, because numbers mean nothing.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Sen. Inhofe isn’t the last crank standing. He’s got Michael, whose arguments are every bit as good as the Senator of OK.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Sorbet@16
It’s not really a win-win for the cranks: I’ve been shown one new science report that I was unaware of, courtesy of Stefan@10, and a nice blog post on how weather isn’t climate from Oakden Wolf@15.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Speaking as a 6-year Oklahoman, I can assure you that you are mistaken.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ha! Global warming is not real. Why do you think they renamed it “climate change”. I thought Discover was a reputable magazine. Who is this hack journalist calling Inhoffe a crank? Inhoffe has a list of over 500 credible scientists in his corner who think global warming is a lie and a hoax. I suggest everyone interested in the subjuct to google “Petition Project” and see the list of over 31,000 scientists, including 10,000 Ph.D.’s who also claim man-made global warming is a hoax and a lie. Don’t trust me, trust the scientists. The United Nations are not scientists, they are politician btw.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
19. Eamon Says:
November 4th, 2009 at 10:10 am
It’s not really a win-win for the cranks: I’ve been shown one new science report that I was unaware of, courtesy of Stefan@10, and a nice blog post on how weather isn’t climate from Oakden Wolf@15.
______________
Good point. I do learn quite a lot from arguing with trolls, both from the points that they force me to go research myself and the information posted by other members of the factanista. That’s certainly a good thing.
But it isn’t really a net gain, either – we in the fact-based community are just circulating more facts amongst ourselves, but not necessarily converting any of the fact-averse. Sure, I’d like to think that out there some science-denier reading this is going to check out one of the links on climate vs. weather and have an epiphany, but I know in reality that ain’t gonna happen.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
In case you’re curious about the “petition project” that Brian mentions:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php
Signatories include Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, Benjamin Pierce, and Geraldine Halliwell (Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls).
November 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Hey Jon, let’s play who said what. Here we go:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
You want more? I can quote highly qualified scientists all day long. I’m with these guys, you can keep Al Gore, James Hanson, Nancy Pelosi, and the other freaks.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Ivar Giaever – Physicist with no background in climate science.
Kiminori Itoh – Industrial chemist with no background in climate science, who never actually said what you quoted him saying.
Jarl Ahlbeck – Wastewater treatment expert with no background in climate science.
Any more “highly qualified scientists” you can quote for us?
Hey, while you’re at it, maybe you can find some nutritionists to talk about particle physics, or some economists to discuss epidemiology. I’m sure they’ll have some really expert insight, too!
November 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Brian, the lists you provide are unreliable. As Jon pointed out, the Oregon Petition is full of fake names. I myself went through 100 names and found not a single climatologist in those 100.
And Mr. Inhofe’s list of scientists supposedly rejecting AGW was researched by the Union of Concerned Scientists (if I recall correctly), who found that only a few dozen people on the list had any credentials in climatology.
They had a conference in New York City last spring for denialists and they found exactly one climatologist willing to speak there. Their other speakers were politicians, engineers, and so forth.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Ok, ok, FINE! Turns out there’s quite a lot of interesting literature involving economic models and the spread of diseases in a population. Kindly strike “epidemiology” in my rant at #24 and replace it with “viral pathology.”
November 5th, 2009 at 11:25 am
OK, then why has the earth been cooling since 2001? That was not in your computer models. Maybe you guys need a better computer, or software program.
The bottom line is this: Global warming is the new religion for urban atheists. You guys think that if we “save the earth” then you will be saved. It gives you something to strive for in your otherwise meaningless, useless lives. We don’t want your snake oil. You are nothing but a bunch of fanatics who think 72 virgins will be awaiting your arrival once you “save the earth” from global warming, deforestation or whatever lame cause you are fighting for. Is it called global warming now or climate change?
Do you realize that 10,000 years ago New York was under a sheet of ice ONE MILE THICK? Where were the cars then? Losers..
November 5th, 2009 at 11:42 am
If the earth has been cooling since 2001, how does one deny that the earth is not cooling?
Let’s say the temperature of the earth was 10 in 2001. Now let’s say the earth’s temperature is 9. I say the earth’s temperature is not warming. How does this make me a denier? This is like a question on an SAT test. It should be one that EVERYONE can get right. It’s more about common sense than anything else. Then again, everybody knows that you can’t reason with religious people. Environmentalism is religion. I challenge everybody to read this speech from the late great Michael Crichton:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
November 5th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Don’t you people realize that ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is just another way to tax and fleece the people of their money and freedoms? The UN is just a political front organization of the ruling class. Yes, the IPPC is a group of scientists, who are much smarter than any of us – but they are under the rule of the UN!!
What are they saying is cauisng this ‘catastrophic’ heating of the earth? CO2. The building block of lfe. What humans exhale. How much do you want gov’t to control your lives. Once CO2 is classified a pollutant, humans are toast. We will be controlled in every way possible. Please stop believing whatever is spoon-fed to you. And don’t come back and say deniers are oil industry payroll – there are plenty of groups funding the global warming alarmists (supposed ‘good’ side).
Now, I am all for controlling what is released into our atmosphere, alernative fuels,wind energy, electric cars, etc – I care about the environment. But there has to be another way to solve the problem besides TAXING you for CO2 output – you believers of this theory are just absolutely nuts. If the solution is always more taxes, then it really smells fishy ….
November 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
29. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 11:42 am
If the earth has been cooling since 2001, how does one deny that the earth is not cooling?
Let’s say the temperature of the earth was 10 in 2001. Now let’s say the earth’s temperature is 9. I say the earth’s temperature is not warming. How does this make me a denier? This is like a question on an SAT test. It should be one that EVERYONE can get right.
__________
True. Which makes it even more pathetic that you got it so horribly wrong. This is a really simple experiment that you, yourself, can do at home. All you need is a computer with Excel or some other spreadsheet program.
Let’s start by substituting your arbitrary numbers with actual numbers. The global mean temperature for January-December 2000, according to the data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Science, was 14.39 degrees Celsius. The global mean temperature for 2008 was 14.54 degrees Celsius. As any fool can plainly see, 14.54 is a higher number than 14.39.
Ahh, you say – but what about all those years BETWEEN 2000 and 2008? Well, they range from 14.55 in 2001 to 14. 76 in 2005, with some up-and-down fluctuations in between. If you type all those numbers into Excel and make them into a line graph, you see a line that looks like this: /\/\/\.
Inconclusive, right? I mean, it goes DOWN from 2007-2008 – obviously the world is cooling, right?
Not when you plot the trend line. The trend line, which you can easily add using MS Excel or any other decent spreadsheet program, clearly shows a RISING trend from 2000 to 2008.
This is why the good science denialists try to use 1998 as their starting point. It was an unusually hot year globally, and provides a nice high starting point (14.7 degrees Celsius) to compare to the lower 14.54 degree average of 2008.
Of course, when you actually go back to Excel and redo your spreadsheet and make the chart and plot the trendline, you get the same result. An overall rising trend from 1998-2008. A time period which, by the way, includes ten of the hottest years on record.
That’s not religion, son. It’s math. Try it yourself and see.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Toaster head, 8 year warming trend? What about the cooling trend in the 60s and 70s? Perhaps we are starting another cooling trend? Can’t you realize this is a scam to take away our freedoms and sovereignty? Or will you be happy to pay your carbon taxes to the UN????
November 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Trendline schmendline. Your math is all wrong, your numbers are faulty. Have the seas risen? no. You lose. Your religion is based on JUNK SCIENCE and it has been exposed. Good luck with your 72 virgins…
November 5th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
31. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Trendline schmendline. Your math is all wrong, your numbers are faulty.
____________
Prove it.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and Western (failed) Christianity. It has a holy book which few have read (IPCC reports), has prophets (Gore) who cannot be challenged, relies on dogma, ignores contrary evidence, has armies of wide-eyed missionaries who have no knowledge of the holy book or the structure of religion; imposes guilt, has a catastrophist view of the planet, and seeks indulgences. In modern urban environments where people have no connection with nature, they often search for a spiritual meaning to life and environmentalism gives this to them with little trouble—i.e., they do not have to study for decades, they need no knowledge, they can indulge in symbolism, can worship nature yet have no contact with nature.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
33. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and Western (failed) Christianity.
_____________
Just FYI – I’m still waiting for you to prove to me that either the GISS global temperature measurements and/or my calculations are wrong. What’s the ETA on that?
November 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
31. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Have the seas risen? no. You lose.
_____________
While I’m at it, I might as well correct this bit of non-fact as well. According to measurements from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites, sea level rose an average of 3 millimeters per year between 1993 and 2005.
Or have you launched your own sea-level monitoring satellite and have your own competing data set that shows otherwise? I’ll be waiting patiently.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Like I said, your numbers are faulty. Most scientists are dependent upon governments for research funding, most universities have a large proportion of funding for climate research, and to challenge the popular paradigm is to guarantee suicide. The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests. By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy. Government bodies, big businesses and environmental NGOs have behaved like big tobacco: recruiting, controlling and rewarding their own “group-think” scientists who bend climatemodeling to justify the State’s near-maniacal quest for power, control, wealth and forced population reduction.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Lastly, most people now believe that the earth warms and cools in natural cycles. They believe this because it is true. Global warming is simply the greatest hoax in the history of man.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
36. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Like I said, your numbers are faulty.
Repeating the same statement doesn’t actually make it true, but I’ll play that game if you like.
The GISS numbers are correct. The GISS numbers are correct. The GISS numbers are correct.
There – I’m winning 3-2 in my assertion that the GISS numbers are correct. (Ooo – now it’s 4-2!) Now, would you like to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, or will you continute to attempt to out-repeat me?
I’ll warn you, I have some MAD Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V skills. You will lose.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
37. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Lastly, most people now believe that the earth warms and cools in natural cycles. They believe this because it is true.
____________
So? How does the fact that the Earth has its own natural cycles – which is indeed true – conflict with the possibility that humans can ALSO affect the climate?
Still waiting on your proof that there was actually a global cooling trend between 2001-2008, by the way.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Toasterhead, you are just another sheep who believes all the lies being told to him. Just because the UN scientists say something, does not mean its true – there is always an agenda …. guess what happens when they say something that their masters (gov’t) don’t like? They lose their funding and job. GISS my ass!!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
32. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Toaster head, 8 year warming trend? What about the cooling trend in the 60s and 70s? Perhaps we are starting another cooling trend?
___________
Good question. What about that cooling trend in the 60s and 70s? I plotted the global average surface temperatures from 1960-1980 into a graph using the same method as in my post above and got – TA-DAAAA – a rising trend, from about 13.92 degrees in 1960 to 14.09 degrees in 1980.
What about that “cooling trend” indeed?
November 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
42. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Toasterhead, you are just another sheep who believes all the lies being told to him. Just because the UN scientists say something, does not mean its true – there is always an agenda …. guess what happens when they say something that their masters (gov’t) don’t like? They lose their funding and job. GISS my ass!!
______________
If you don’t agree with the numbers I provided, you are more than welcome to provide competing numbers that prove your “cooling trend” is correct and the GISS measurements are wrong. I’m waiting.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
GLOBAL COOLING SCARE. This was all over the news in the 1970s. You can turn sound off so you don’t get distracted. I put zero faith in GISS of any other gov’t funded/UN scientist derived data – if you want to believe them like the sheep you are – you are free to do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDkoY
Scary nautre of the true motives behind global warming. Keep the people scared and afraid and you can slowly take away all their freedoms and hard earned $$. Man will adapt if the planet is indeed getting warmer – WE DON’T NEED TO BE TAXED ON THE AIR WE EXHALE to save the planet. Get real, buddy.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/full/26311/Has_Anyone_Read_the_Copenhagen_Agreement.html
Another eye opener – global warming is tied into a global plan to limit freedoms and consolidate wealth and power in the hands of a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
November 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
CO2 lags temperature increase – that is a fact. So then something else is causing the warming (sun?). Since that is true, then why are we going to being taxed on out carbon output?
November 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
45. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
GLOBAL COOLING SCARE.
___________
So the answer is “no,” then. You don’t have any proof that the global average temperature measurements I provided are incorrect.
That’s what I thought.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko
Bad link, sorry.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
13.92 to 14.09 degC? 0.17 degC increase in 20 yrs. Do you know how small that is and how stupid you sound?
You just fail to see the motives behind the gw movement, its ok – some ppl are just followers and you are one of the them. I’m finished with you. Enjoy giving all of your money to the gov’t to save the planet. If there is a solution that does not involve taking my money I may consider it, otherwise it is a joke.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
48. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Another eye opener – global warming is tied into a global plan to limit freedoms and consolidate wealth and power in the hands of a few.
____________
Wow. A YouTube video. Well, that proves everything, doesn’t it?
Here – I have indisputable proof that cats play the piano: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J—aiyznGQ
Prove me wrong.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/Reg110Dv00Elem02_10102008_pg.gif
Here you go – you can clearly see the cooling trend from 1960 to mid 70s. Since you are too lazy to do your own research.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
49. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
13.92 to 14.09 degC? 0.17 degC increase in 20 yrs. Do you know how small that is and how stupid you sound?
No, I don’t see how small that is. It’s pretty large, actually, on a geologic scale. Let’s put that .17 degree increase into perspective.
During the Permian-Triassic extinction period, 251 million years ago, temperatures rose 6 degrees Celsius over a 10,000 year period. This correlates with the extinction of 96% of marine species and 70% of land vertebrates. Assuming a steady temperature climb, that 6 degree rise in 10 milennia averages to a 0.012 degree rise per 20-year period.
By comparison, 0.17 degrees is quite large. Extrapolating from the 1960-1980 “global cooling” trend, we’ll reach that 6-degree rise in 705 years. Humans may indeed adapt in that time period. The plants and animals we depend on to survive, not so much.
You just fail to see the motives behind the gw movement, yadda yadda yadda
No. You just fail to prove them, instead giving me empty baseless platitude after empty baseless platitude. Show me some official documentation that proves your worldwide conspiracy theory and I’ll consider it. Until then, your science denialism is purely faith-based.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
51. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Here you go – you can clearly see the cooling trend from 1960 to mid 70s. Since you are too lazy to do your own research.
____________
Yeah – in the continental United States. Which, granted, IS the entire globe to a great many of its residents. But to the rest of the world, it’s one country.
Good try though!
November 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
51. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov
____________
That’s funny – I thought you didn’t put your faith in government-funded data. Don’t you know that NOAA is part of the same governmental-environmental-communist-atheist-jewish-muslim-UN-alien-lizard-people conspiracy behind the global warming hoax?
Or have I said too much… Lord Xarthnax will be so angry with me.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
sigh …. its like arguing with a retarded person. good luck. you can believe what you wish … keep watching the mainstream news and reading the ny times. again, good luck. don’t think for yourself, please let others do it for you.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
55. QRS Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
good luck. don’t think for yourself, please let others do it for you.
____________
I do think for myself. I don’t generally watch or read mainstream media, and I’ve never seen An Inconvenient Truth. I prefer reading the real science, not the watered-down media-filtered version. Did you miss the posts above where I went and calculated trend lines for global average temperatures myself, instead of relying on media reports?
Still waiting for you or any other science denier to provide alternate global average temperatures, by the way. What’s the ETA on that?
And, while you’re at it, would you mind providing even the slightest bit of evidence for your vast conspiracy theory? I’ve been doing a lot of “thinking for myself” about that, and it’s just not adding up.
I mean, it’s a little difficult to believe that the U.S. government – the same government you conservatives are always saying is too incompetent to run health care, manage the borders, and implement a “cash for clunkers” program; the United Nations – the one that screwed up the Oil for Food program, let Rwanda slip from a humanitarian mission to all-out genocide, and takes weeks to draft a resolution politely asking a country not to make nuclear weapons; a few thousand research scientists and college professors, and a bunch of stoned Greenpeace staffers, all managed to get together and perpetrate the largest hoax in the history of our planet.
I mean, everything from falsifying satellite temperature readings to creating fake computer models to drafting fake studies and having them peer-reviewed by fake peers in dozens of fake journals – that’s a LOT of faking, involving a LOT of people, very very few of whom stand to actually profit from it.
So how’d they pull it off? I would think that there’s some kind of paper trail somewhere. An email, a memo, a text message, a Twitter post, SOMETHING that shows evidence of all that falsified climate data. So where is it? Are these hundreds of thousands of conspirators really that good that nobody has slipped up? Nobody has left a paper trail? Nobody has left even one shred of evidence of this vast global warming swindle?
Or is it just possible that the REAL swindlers are the people who convinced you and plenty of other gullible folks that science is a lie?
November 6th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I’m not disputing that the global temperatures have risen in the past decade or so, I am disputing the supposed cause. The supposed cause is CO2 – which is impossible as CO2 increases PRIOR to temperature increases. More C02 is good – for plants and growing crops for example. The plan is for a carbon tax – does that not seem odd, the building block of life is now a harmful pollutant? The same thing that you breathe will be taxed? Who is to benefit from this?
I also do not believe every conspiracy theory out there, but they are something to think about w/an open mind.
Again I do not dispute the temp data – but you have to ask where is it coming from and what is the motive? I
‘m also not a conservative, thanks.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
QRS@57
The absorption properties of CO2 are well understood – it absorbs strongly in the IR wavelengths where the Earth re-radiates heat to space, thus causing the retention of some of that heat by the Earth.
“The supposed cause is CO2 – which is impossible as CO2 increases PRIOR to temperature increases. ”
Please expand upon this point – you haven’t made it clearly.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:29 am
57. QRS Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:34 am
I’m not disputing that the global temperatures have risen in the past decade or so, I am disputing the supposed cause. The supposed cause is CO2 – which is impossible as CO2 increases PRIOR to temperature increases. More C02 is good – for plants and growing crops for example. The plan is for a carbon tax – does that not seem odd, the building block of life is now a harmful pollutant? The same thing that you breathe will be taxed? Who is to benefit from this?
______________
No, it’s not impossible that CO2 is the primary cause of the current warming trend. It’s well-established that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. This does not conflict with the ice core studies that show anywhere from a 200 to an 800-year lag between rising temperatures due to Malenkovitch cycles and increases in atmospheric CO2. The simple fact is that the climate is complicated. It’s not a one-input, one-output equation. CO2 increases are both a cause and a result of temperature increase.
When temperatures rise due to natural cycles, CO2 is released into the atmosphere by the oceans, thawing permafrost, algae, etc. Once it is released, this CO2 then acts as an amplifier for the warming trend that is happening, usually over a 5,000 year cycle or so. According to several studies, CO2 and other greenhouse gasses account for approximately 1/3 of the warming found in these historical records.
So, yes – in the long-term historical record, some warming periods are not started by CO2. But they are prolonged by it. The warming period we are currently in is different from the ones we see in the ice cores. In this case, the CO2 has unequivocally increased, from 290 ppm before the industrial revolution to 385 ppm today. That is going to cause the climate to change, and we have a long historical record proving it.
Now, where is this plan for a “breathing tax” you love to talk about? I don’t see one anywhere in the Copenhagen treaty or the capitulate-and-trade bills in Congress. Nobody is considering taxing the air you breathe – just the buried carbon that we all have been helping to dig up and inject back into the atmosphere. Getting that concentration down below a comparatively safer 350 ppm will take investment, and much of that cost should be paid by the companies who have profited from putting it in the atmosphere in the first place.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Everybody now knows that global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of man. 10,000 years ago(merely a blink of an eye in geological time) New York was under a sheet of ice ONE MILE THICK! Where were all those people driving their SUV’s back then when the ice melted. Global warming is a big fat lie, don’t believe the hoax.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Brian@60
different mechanisms were involved – if you’re interested in widening your horizons you might want to check out “Milankovitch Cycles”. No SUVs required…
November 6th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
61. Eamon Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
if you’re interested in widening your horizons you might want to check out “Milankovitch Cycles”.
__________
Yeah, I’m sure he’ll get right on that…
So Brian – when do you think you’ll be getting those alternate global temperature statistics for us to see, since the ones provided by NASA are obviously flawed?
November 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
this guy breaks it down pretty nicely:
http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/0704371669
Everybody knows that the earth has been cooling since 2001. My science is too tight for you global warmists. Your religion is bunk, and based on a giant lie. Global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of man. Get used to it suckaahs.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
You guys are so gullible. Global warming is not real. Ha! GLobal warming is a hoax. “Milankovitch Cycles” is soooo last decade. Milankovitch has been totally discredited. He is a fraud! Ha.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
39. Brian Says:
November 5th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Lastly, most people now believe that the earth warms and cools in natural cycles. They believe this because it is true.
64. Brian Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
“Milankovitch Cycles” is soooo last decade. Milankovitch has been totally discredited. He is a fraud! Ha.
Amazing. You guys are so anti-science, you’re even arguing against your own arguments.
So what’s the haps with those temperature statistics you’re going to provide that prove that the Earth has been cooling since 2001? Any chance we’ll see that before the end of the decade?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It is all broken down in the book Heaven and Earth. It’s a treasure trove of stats, proving that the earth has been cooling since 2001. It’s based on fact, not religion – the religion of environmentalism. You should take a look. Ian Plimer is the foremost climate expert in the world:
http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Warming-Missing-Science/dp/0704371669
November 6th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX AND A LIE!
November 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
66. Brian Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It is all broken down in the book Heaven and Earth.
A simple “no” would suffice. The fact that you’re trying to send me to a book that’s been thoroughly shredded by actual climate scientists to prove your point shows me that you are incapable of answering my question.
Face it – you have no scientific basis for any claim you have made in this thread. You cannot prove that Earth is cooling. You cannot prove your conspiracy bunk. You cannot prove that climate science is a lie. All you can do is repeat the same baseless claims over and over.
Pathetic.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX. Everybody knows it. I figured you would just cut down any person whom you don’t agree with. “The are all heretics”. You know, douchebaggery is no way to go through life. People aren’t buying your snake oil anymore and you can’t to anything about it. Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahah! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!
November 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Repeat after me toasthead:
I am a complete douchebag. I lie. I think Mao is great.
Once you have identified your problems you will be able to solve them!
November 6th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Global warming has been totally discredited. Al Gore is a liar. Man-made climate change is a figment of idiot’s imaginations. It is not real. More people believe in haunted houses thank man made global warming. Maybe there are UFO’s and haunted houses and global warming. NOT! We are alone, all alone, but surrounded by idiots who believe in global warming.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I have to go, but if you true believers in the religion of global warming are still here, i’ll be back on monday to drop more of my tight science on you. Developing…
November 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
70. Brian Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I am a complete douchebag. I lie. I think Mao is great.
_____________
Thank you for admitting this, but you’re really not telling me anything I didn’t already know.
So. About that alternate data set that proves the Earth cooled since 2001. Any chance you’re going to get it so you can back up your claim? If it’s in Ian Pilmer’s book, as you claim, surely he got it from somewhere and didn’t just make it up, right? Surely no reputable scientist would do that.
So what scientific study does Mr. Pilmer cite in his endnotes as a source for his claim in his book? Please post it here. You can choose APA, MLA, or Chicago Manual of Style citation format – it’s entirely up to you.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
71. Brian Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
i’ll be back on monday to drop more of my tight science on you.
____________
“Tight science” indeed. Your science is so tight, you can’t even part with a single fact. BOOM!
November 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
wow. you are very defensive about this factual global cooling since 2001. here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
Plus, when i go outside, i can tell the earth is not any hotter than it always was. Duh!
November 6th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
GLOBAL COOLING SUCKS. I WISH THE EARTH WOULD WARM UP AGAIN. IT’S FREAKING COLD.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
74. Brian Says:
November 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
wow. you are very defensive about this factual global cooling since 2001. here you go:
No, just defensive of facts and fact-based reasoning. If you’re going to make a claim, you need to be able to back it up with more than just opinion pieces. Thank you for finally posting something remotely useful.
I found the article you posted especially useful, since it based its premise on statistics from the UK’s Met Office, which provided this little tidbit when I checked their web site:
So. It seems that the tables have been turned and the chairs are now facing the wrong way. Once again you have failed to provide evidence supporting your “global cooling” claim.
Just FYI – it is still an honorable thing to admit your mistakes and concede defeat. I won’t think any less of you, I promise.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Brian@66
“Ian Plimer is the foremost climate expert in the world”
Oh please! The man is a geology professor, so his expertise is primarily rocks.
His book is full of untruths and misapprehensions – see the collated evidence at:
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
November 9th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Global Warming is a hoax. Don’t believe the lies. Just look outside. It’s cold out there. Use common sense. Hippie college professors who rely on government grants can’t be trusted. The data has all been manipulated. It’s all a bunch of lies..
November 9th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
bravenewclimate.com? Are you freaking serious. Those people are just hacks. Global warming hacks. Global warming is not real, now get a job losers.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
79. Brian Says:
November 9th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Global Warming is a hoax. Don’t believe the lies. Just look outside. It’s cold out there.
__________
I did. It’s actually quite warm out today. Looks like you lose again, Twajie!
P.S. Have you had a chance to dig up some more data to back up your “global cooling” theory, since the BBC article you tried to use contradicted you?
November 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Global Warming is a figment of the imagination of people with no brains. If you have brains, you don’t believe in global warming. If you are an mindless idiot like al gore, you think it’s “the greatest crisis in the history of mankind”. Don’t believe the hoax people.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Just say no the the global warming hacks. GLobal warming is a hoax.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
NOAA NEW DATA
National Overview: October 3rd coldest on record
Temperature Highlights – October
The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coolest based on preliminary data.
For the nation as a whole, it was the third coolest October on record. The month was marked by an active weather pattern that reinforced unseasonably cold air behind a series of cold fronts. Temperatures were below normal in eight of the nation’s nine climate regions, and of the nine, five were much below normal. Only the Southeast climate region had near normal temperatures for October.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
84. Brian Says:
November 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
NOAA NEW DATA
National Overview: October 3rd coldest on record
_________
Thanks for the local weather report. But what does that have to do with the long-term shift in the Earth’s climate?
November 12th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
New study: Georgia Tech: “50 percent of the [USA] warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes rather than greenhouse gases”
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri – Chairman of the IPCC also shared the Nobel Peace Prize with politicial activist Al Gore. Let’s see his climate science credentials: Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974, MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University.
How does this guy fancy himself a climate expert? What a douchebag. He should stick to locomotive engineering.