The Continuing, Unfortunate Effectiveness of Marc Morano

By Chris Mooney | December 17, 2009 2:11 pm

Here’s a Newsweek.com bloggy profile hailing the tough-to-dispute successes of a leading nemesis climate progress, Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com:

With “Climategate”—the release last month of thousands of hacked e-mails showing debate about climate change may have been stifled—[Morano] is now getting more attention than ever before. As of last Friday, according to one the many e-mails this—and probably most—reporters get, he’s currently stationed at ground zero of the climate-change debate, Copenhagen, which he points out in e-mails, “is extremely cold.” (Several independent reviews of the hacked e-mails conclude that some scientists were engaging in embarrassing and at times unethical discussions, but the scientific consensus showing anthropogenic global warming was neither compromised nor fabricated).

He has been on countless news shows lately, including the BBC and CNN where he’s engaged in what he described to me as “lively and hostile debates.” He’s also appeared on the national radio shows of Sean Hannity, Fred Thomspon, and Lars Larsen. One of his fans (and a former boss of Morano’s) is Rush Limbaugh, who last month inadvertently shut down Morano’s site by urging listeners to follow his coverage of Climategate. The race to Morano’s site came after Rush gave this blessing: “Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy─other than me, of course─doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here.”

Rush is absolutely right. The two of them are driving waves of outrage against climate scientists that are significantly influencing the media and thus, probably, public opinion. And there is, in my mind, little effective counter.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Energy, Environment, Global Warming

Comments (152)

  1. EyeRon

    “there is, in my mind, little effective counter.”

    How about facts?

  2. badnicolez

    How about raw data?

  3. EyeRon

    Let me expound a little.

    The Global Warming aka Climate Change lobby has successfully propagandized state & federal governments, the media, universities and the public schools. Even churches seem to be falling in line.

    Yet the voice of a few dissenters causes you to wring your hands, troubled that they are proving successful in raising doubts about the “science”.

    It seems to me that if the science was as settled as say, electromagnetism, or combustion or semiconductors (just to name several applications of science ubiquitous in modern society) you would not fear the dissent of a few luddites.

    But if your movement is primarily a political one and the facts are subject to change than dissent is a concern.

    So do you really trust the facts or is their nagging doubt?

  4. Dark tent

    EyeRon said:

    “there is, in my mind, little effective counter.”

    How about facts?

    I agree.

    That’s the only counter scientists really have.

    I think the scientists involved in the email controversy have learned that lesson the hard way.

    Science can’t be “spun” and efforts to do so inevitably backfire because science is about searching for the truth regardless of where that leads.

    Actually, I am beginning to think that the American public are simply incapable of addressing climate change or even formulating an educated opinion on it .

    They seem far more interested in how many mistresses Tiger Woods has had.

    Sad, but true.

  5. Jochen

    Only the fools and the dead don’t change their opinions. I changed my mind after 6 years of believing in AGW, and in my current opinion AGW is bunk science at best. The change came after reading a dozen or so books and countless online articles on both sides of the issue. If they should ever present solid evidence based on uncorrupted science, I will change my mind again. Until then, I will do my duty to society as an educated and rational human being and remain a Skeptic!

  6. Realth

    The recent revelation that much of the Russian data was not used and only urban warmed Temperatures used (about 1/2 the total)illustrates the problem The CRU guys now say “don’t blame us the WMO picked the data”. The use of the 1 tree in the hockey stick, and the “homogenized, value added” data show it even more. What is needed is that ALL available original data be made available to everybody as well as the “models”. Then honest discussion can occur. Nobody who wants the world to believe their theory’s or models etc should be allowed to pick, “valaue add” etc.

  7. dapster

    You know, what’s really “unfortunate” about this debacle is the fact that the truth has only recently seen the light of day, and that the scientific method has been serially raped by climatologists for at least 2 decades.

    Let the debate begin anew!

  8. Wow! What is amazing is the fact that it has been obvious for some time that the scientists were doing something wrong. Anytime someone says that the debate is settled without there ever being a debate in the first place should concern anyone with a brain. If the science is so settled why don’t they have a debate on national TV and embarrass the skeptics into silence? Why won’t the scientists release their raw data to see if their results can be duplicated? Why is it when the raw data comes out it contradicts what the alarmists are saying? Why are they frustrating and obstructing FOI requests? The raw data from the UK, Australia and New Zealand shows no global warming. Why does NASA keep adjusting their numbers upward? Doesn’t the astronomer, Jimbo Hansen, ever get it right? Why do the models disagree with one another? At best one can be right and yet not one of the models predicted the lack of warming which has occurred over the last ten years? There is not one shred of empirical evidence that shows that man is in any way having anything but a trivial impact on the climate? Why are the Russians saying that their raw data has been massaged by the CRU to create a false impression that there is global warming in Russia? Why is Michael Mann and Jim Hansen afraid to release their raw data? The CRU’s Phil Jones wrote that he would delete the raw data rather than provide it and now he says the raw data was lost! Coincidence? The climate is always changing and always will. The question is, how far up the political food chain will this scandal go?

  9. J.K.

    You spelled effectiveness wrong in your headline.

  10. gillt

    Isn’t this your thing, Mooney? Instead you’re vacillating between being impressed and depressed with the oppositions effective spin.

    Also, what does it mean to have an “unethical discussion” in a private email? There was zero evidence of a conspiracy of global proportions, which is what would be needed to overthrow AWG.

  11. james wheaton

    I also watch closely the war on evolution. The parallels are many. Both evolution and climate change are slow to happen such that they are described by things difficult for a layman to understand. And both can be spun effectively by those who want to. And both have scientists who are immensely frustrated by the continual denials and blocking and misquoting, etc. And both are opposed by entities who have a vested interest in their undoing. And importantly they represent the best explanations of what is happening, with reems of supporting data, and therefore need to be regarded as factual until shown otherwise.

    It is alarming to see the climate science community under such fire. For our planets sake I hope they are all a bunch of self serving crooks. But I think I know better. It is the denier community who are to be mistrusted, and if they succeed in derailing climate action world wide, it is they who we will all have to thank some years down the road when it finally becomes clear just why our climate has gone to hell.

    Who do you trust – scientists on the cutting edge of a difficult field, or deniers with obvious vested interests in undoing the science? Anyone who tosses his hat in with the latter is at best intellectually dishonest.

  12. Funny

    Dark Tent,

    It’s funny, but you gave away something about yourself:

    You stated ‘I’m beginning to think that…’ and ‘They seem…’ and then ended your post with ‘Sad, but true.’

    What you think and feel become facts to you. I think, therefore it’s true. It seems to me, therefore it’s true.

    The American public may not be as dumb as you ‘think’ and ‘feel’

  13. james wheaton

    Realth (#6) -

    Russian data not used, urban heating effect data – sounds very fishy and in need of debunking. Can you provide your source of data?

  14. astonerii

    “And there is, in my mind, little effective counter.”

    HAH HAH HAH HAH, OMG ROTFLMGDMFAO @ Chris Mooney

    That is because facts trump lies.

    Now, I am here to save you from complete humiliation. You do not want to be laughed at do you? Of course not, that is not cool. So you should probably either go get educated on the reality of the earth’s climate, or you should just shut up about it. If you want to make a fool of yourself, feel free to continue trying to walk up the down escalator looking like a retard, we are perfectly happy to laugh at your lack of intelligence and complete ignorance.

  15. astonerii

    “4. Dark tent Says:
    December 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
    They seem far more interested in how many mistresses Tiger Woods has had.”

    Actually, compared to climategate, Tiger Woods is pretty much bottom of the barrel for Google hits per news article. It is more the idea that the media are interested in woods.

  16. Dean

    LIES, DAM* LIES, & DISCOVER

  17. Funny

    James Wheaton,

    In your ‘who do you trust’ question, you left out the most important players. The global warming promoters with obvious vested interest, very deep pockets, and a political agenda.

  18. Mark F.

    Tim Lambert has a post up about the Russian data:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

    He’s not too impressed with the latest claims of the “denialosphere” (his phrase).

  19. gillt

    Shorter Realth, “Hidden Data, Hidden Data!

    The issue isn’t whether data and models are made available to every Joe six-pack with an opinion, but whether Joe would know what to make of the data if he bothered to read it. Cries for data are a distraction: a certain anti-intellectual distrust in the self-correcting ability of science is the problem.

    Here’s your hidden-in-plain-sight data.

    http://dss.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

  20. Marion Delgado

    Jochen is spamming the exact same comment on multiple posts. word for word.

  21. Oliver

    The genesis of skepticism lies in the number of environmental events being placed under the climate change umbrella. Classic cry wolf syndrome. Morano’s site simply reinforces and amplifies the skeptical belief – it does not create it.

    Last week as an experiment, I chose the terms ‘Turtle’ and ‘Climate Change’. Clicking on an article at random ‘Climate Change Killing Sea Turtles”, I read:

    “PLAYA GRANDE, Costa Rica, Nov. 14 (UPI) — Climate change threatens the extinction of leatherback sea turtles that have called the Pacific Ocean home for 150 million years, scientists said.
    Warmer temperatures and rising seas are further reducing turtle populations already devastated by beach development, net fishing and restaurants that consider turtle eggs a delicacy.”

    So slightly warmer temperatures and an inch or two of sea level rise is a bigger factor than fishing, beach development, and people eating the eggs? These are the kind of claims that stokes the fires of skepticism over time. It’s not an isolated incident – Google for any animal and the term ‘climate change’ and judge for yourself. This is why the fact that one needs to add ‘climate change’ to earth science proposals to get them funded is a running joke among scientists.

  22. Mark R

    I used to believe in man-made global warming based simply on the many articles in the mainstream media. Then I started looking into the details of the evidence on both sides. I learned about the new and inexact science of dendroclimatology and other obscure things that the global warming hypothesis is based on. Over the last two years this led me to begin questioning the “consensus” (including whether a consensus even existed).

    Eventually, based on careful analysis, I came to realize that there was very little real evidence supporting the claims of catastrophic doom from global warming. The catastrophic alarmists rely on computer simulations that themselves rely on there being positive feedback. There is no empirical evidence supporting such positive feedback and in fact much evidence that falsifies such claims. My suspicion was furthered by the spin of the pro-warming spokespeople. For example, the claim of “90% certain” in the IPCC summary. Read the entire IPCC report and you’ll not find any data or conclusions that would support such a claim of certainty. In fact, you read of much uncertainty.

    The repeated refusal over many years by a highly influential (and closely connected) group of climate scientists to release the raw data and methods behind their papers (such release is expected in normal science), furthered my suspicions that not only was there incorrect data and biased conclusions underlying the global warming hypothesis, but that this was not the result of accidental error but rather a somewhat coordinated effort perhaps fueled by the billions of d0llars of research grant money at stake and the personal ambitions of a few “ring-leading” researchers. Thus I found the stunning information contained in the leaked Climategate documents sadly unsurprising (I encourage others to actually read this material, particularly the “Harry-Read-Me.txt” file).

    I believe that there are many climate scientists with integrity that did not collude to manipulate data, however it is important to realize that those honest scientists did much research that unknowingly relied on the manipulated data as input. So, by tainting the core data that the entire climate science field relies on as their baseline, a small number of dishonest scientists in influential positions were able to cause hundreds of honest papers from honest scientists to have dishonest conclusions. It is sad that now much of this work will have to be redone. This is why the claim that the CRU data manipulation doesn’t matter because “many other papers support the same hypothesis” is so disingenuous. Anyone that looks at how the HADCRU data sets were used, either as sources for other data sets or to “calibrate” other data sets, understands how the majority of work in the field of climate science was contaminated over time by this bad data. It’s become a stunning waste of tax dollars.

  23. freelunch

    It is certainly interesting to see the anthropogenic climate change deniers coming out in force here with their evidence-free accusations about the scientists who have discovered the problem. I hope that some of you are getting paid to engage in the war against facts and learning, because there is really no other justification for the deniers. Reality is quite clear. Human beings are affecting the climate.

  24. Kate

    Sceptics in Wonderland
    by Christopher Essex
    December 7, 2009

    The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Daniel Henninger critical of scientists who allowed the culture of Climategate to develop in their professions.

    Christopher Essex, a leading Canadian applied mathematician and award-winning author, has written to Henninger.

    Dear Daniel

    My friend Willie Soon passed on an article from your “Wonder Land” column. It’s very good. It is an angle that I have anticipated for a very long time.

    Wonderland is certainly where I have been trapped for more than twenty years. But it is not nearly as nice as Alice’s version. Thoughts of the inquisition come to mind instead.

    Many of we scientists have been ringing the alarm bells from the beginning on this. We have been telling everyone who would listen about who we were dealing with. We have known all along.

    Climategate is no surprise at all to us. Evidence for this is in my book with Ross McKitrick from 2002, Taken by Storm. It won a $10,000 prize, and is now in a second edition. But few were listening. If my book had a title like Oh, my God, we are all going to die, I am sure that it would have been on the NYT bestseller list at once.

    Even though I understand where you are coming from, I find it rings flat with me to have to face people asking where the scientists were when we were overcoming so many many obstacles to get a rare fair hearing. The scientists have been tied up and gagged in the back room. I hate that. We were there screaming our lungs out all along.

    Damn it all, my friends Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre had to have a hearing before US congress to get that ridiculous hockey stick broken! It should have been a simple matter. The thing could hardly hold together under its own weight.

    Ross and I had a whole chapter on the hockey stick in our book, long before that controversy came to light. We used similar techniques to compute the US GDP with tree rings back to the year 1000, and we got a lovely hockey stick.

    I did not want in on the original hockey stick paper, because of my objections to the merits of the underlying physics, but I did comment on the drafts. In the second edition, there is an account of how the thing got broken by Ross and Steve.

    That science needed to get settled in Congress should have got people’s attention right there that there was something seriously wrong.

    Science is alive and well in the individual scientists who are not caught up in gaming the system for bigger grants. I call it small science. Many of them are doing very unfashionable things, and are happy to get no recognition for it.

    That is where you can find the real scientists. That is where the future will be.

    A milestone in this mess can be said to be when John Houghton of the IPCC said it was the IPCC’s job to “orchestrate” the views of science. Everything that has happened flows as an inevitable consequence of that.

    Some important research fields have been “orchestrated” out of existence. Even before Climategate, I have been saying that we have set ourselves back a generation by taking the money from governments with so many strings attached.

    Governments leaders wanted something where they could absolve themselves of the responsibility for making informed decisions. They would have to read science stuff otherwise. They ordered up a kind of unnatural scientist that would tell them precisely what they wanted to hear.

    But they gave the puppeteers clubs to deal with those of us who remained true. And the perps of Climategate are what they got. All of my colleagues have had to endure these bullies and criminals for a very long time.

    You should understand that (real) scientists have had to pay the heaviest price for the creation of these monsters for decades. And they were not created by us.
    Best wishes,
    Christopher

    Christopher Essex is Professor and Associate Chair of the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario.

  25. Has anyone else confirmed that whatever land surface temperature increase there has been is due strictly to growth in our urban areas ?

    Divide surface temperature readings into two categories, urban and rural
    Urban = population > 150,000 recently, and
    Rural = population < 10,000 recently
    Choose pairs of urban/rural so that the paired rural area is “nearby”
    (approx: np closer than 40km, no further than 100km)
    Keep only those urban /rural pairs where annual data is available for the same duration, (say) 100 years.
    Look at temperature change, year-to-year separately for the two groups.
    In both cases graph the trend (use an acceptable technique, such as least squares).

    There is a study already floating around on the internet (dad & son video. I don’t know their names) that claims to have done this, for the period from 1900 to recent, using GSFC NASA (giss) data. (“raw” or “homogenized”? I don’t know. Vaguely recall it may also just be with data for U.S.)

    That study showed basically no temperature change in the rural areas over the entire period, and that urban annual temperature change grew steadily over that same period. I didn’t notice any other commentary about implications. However ….

    Assuming their research was okay, would not the results then imply that there has been no “global” warming?. If there had been, since we’re talking “global”, there should have been some increase in rural temperatures over that 100 year period. Of course, if that is true, then there would also seem to imply that the increasing change in urban temperatures has been due only to changes over time in the size of these urban areas. In the latter case there’s no doubt man’s imprint, but it’s been (at least so far) not significant enough to show up globally. Of course, when the two subsets of data are merged, one would see an identifiable overall rise in temperature over time, and it is in that representation that “warmists” have at least a vague claim that some, or all of it, is global warming.

    Satellite temperature readings, which have shown no discernable temperature increase for the two past decades, deal (perhaps?) with temperature readings of larger areas which may hide this anomaly.

  26. Kate

    4. Dark tent Says: “They seem far more interested in how many mistresses Tiger Woods has had.”

    Dark tent – Take a look at the comments here. The Brits get it.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6951029.ece

  27. SLC

    Re John Kwok

    Mark Morano has not the slightest interest in the “facts”. His only interest is suckling at the tit of the energy companies as their shill. He iis effective, just like Duane Gish, who he models’ himself on, used to be effective in denying evolution. Just like Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz shilled for the tobacco companies in denying the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. The leading deniers are in it for the money, plain and simple. I suspect that most of the clowns who have shown up on this blog came here from Moranos’ web site.

    Re freehunch # 21

    This is how the right wingers operate. It’s the old story, when the facts are against one, smear the opposition. These are the same cretins who loudly proclaim that President Obama is a Muslim. Their MO is smear and fear, much like the late and unlamented Richard Nixon used to smear his opponents as communists.

  28. SLC

    Incedently, here’s a link to a post by PZ Myers which has part of an article by a colleague of his at UMM. His colleague explains what the “trick” cited by Phil Jones was all about.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/why_climatologists_used_the_tr.php

  29. Funny

    freelunch,

    Facts are funny things… Does proxy data constitute a fact? Does a model making a hypothesis about the future climate constitute a fact? Does the output of a statistical analysis constitute a fact? We’re engaged in a war of ideas and hypothesis, not a war of facts.

  30. Kate

    Here’s another link to a post explaing what the “trick” was all about.
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

  31. From P.Z. Myers’ post

    “The problem is that in the past few decades, the tree ring-climate relationships seem to have become “decoupled” in many areas. Why? The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

    Or else the putative temperature proxy is untrustworthy and should be discarded. Good scientists should be examining that possibility, even it it undercuts their preferred hypothesis.

  32. Jon

    It will be interesting to see if all these trolls are still as active after Copenhagen. I think that has a lot to do with this activity.

    As for the “trick,” Kate, try a source that is not funded by oil interests, such as Factcheck.org:

    http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

    Scroll down to the section labeled “Mixed Messages.”

  33. Kate

    I directed you to the homepage of the very scientist who has been discredited by Phil Jones. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/

    His name is Steve McIntyre. If you did not recognize his website, you have not done your homework. You are completely clueless, yet you feel you can comment on something you obviously know nothing about.

    I have followed this for hundreds of hours, as a teacher and librarian who can read with curiosity, not animosity.

    Discover Magazine has always been one of my favorites in the library. I am so glad to see they are covering this heart-breaking problem. Thank you! Discover. Well done.

  34. bad Jim

    Anyone who thinks that “Climategate” is significant does not understand the science. There’s no point in arguing with people who are unaware of the extent of their ignorance.

  35. JWB

    AS Our Lord said, as quoted in the Gospel of Saint John:

    ” You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”

  36. models

    Don’t people realize that all the predictions of AGW are based on computer models that cannot account for all the factors that affect the climate of the Earth? Models people, Models….this is all based on inefficient computer models….Everytime you read something in the mainstream media describing the terrible future because of AGW, realize it is based on a computer model…

  37. gillt

    Denis Ables: “There is a study already floating around on the internet (dad & son video. I don’t know their names)”

    A wonderful example of the level at which the AGW denialism crowd operates. Take a moment to appreciate the double standard: thousands of climate scientists with years of training gathering and disseminating data vs. an alleged and nameless father and son on YouTube. This is why global warming “skeptic” (wink wink) belongs in scare quotes.

  38. Kate

    Climategate: Faster and Faster, the Dominos Fall

    With the revelation about the cherrypicked Russian stations (plus six other freshly, independently discovered problems), the real story of how we got here just took a shape.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-faster-and-faster-the-dominos-fall/

  39. Getting back to the post, I nominate Joy Behar to debate Morano. Beating him depends on how quickly you can punch, not on how deeply you know the science. I heard her take Ann Coulter apart, and Coulter is a smart and effective liar.

    A non-talking head can beat Morano in a debate, but only under the condition that the debate be solely about the following: “Resolved, the items posted on a Climate Depot for the week of [pick one week randomly] were mostly accurate.” The only way to counter the Gish Gallop is to nail Morano down to a record. Even a week might have too many posts to conclusively prove him to be full of frass, so a shorter period might be needed.

    Dealing with off-topic denialists posting their opinions: I would be very happy to bet you real money over warming. Please let me know if you’re interested.

  40. Busiturtle

    Can someone explain why it is catastrophic for Arctic sea ice to melt during the summer? Does this not actually create greater global efficiency in opening up shorter shipping routes between Asia and North America? From where does the mindset originate that change must of a necessity be bad?

  41. Marion Delgado

    This weeks CLIMATE DENIALISM TROLL SPAM POINT IS:

    I USED TO BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, BUT NOW I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT.

    It’s in the back of the Big Book of Clip-Art Comments. You’ll find it right after

    I USED TO BELIEVE IN DARWINISM, BUT NOW I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT

    in the

    I USED TO BE AN ATHEIST, BUT NOW I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT

    section.

    I USED TO BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, BUT NOW I’VE SEEN THE LIGHT posts and comments are up 5000% – good work, everyone!

    Next Month:

    Next month is all

    THE EARTH IS COOLING

    2010 might be confusingly warm, so leveraging 1998 is a top priority.

    All of 2010 is
    THE DATA IS HIDDEN, AND MANIPULATED

    February:

    In February the troll point is

    THIS EMPHASIS ON CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS PAYING NO ATTENTION TO MALARIA, HUNGER, AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

  42. Marion Delgado

    By the way, Steve McIntyre is not a scientist. That’s like saying if a concert violinist has a tapeworm, that the tapeworm is a concert violinist.

  43. Kate

    My, My, My, My mama done tole me. “Don’t argue politics or religion!”

  44. gilt40: I’m an interested observer, not a climatologist. But perhaps you should have read the rest of my commentary before you went drifted off into lala land.

  45. gillt

    Sure Busiturtle, please tell all the good citizens of the Marshall Islands that you’re in favor of melting polar ice caps.

  46. My previous commentary once again, for the benefit of those with constipated brains and diaria of the mouth:

    Has anyone else confirmed that whatever land surface temperature increase we have experienced has been due strictly to growth in our urban areas?

    Divide surface temperature readings into two categories, urban and rural
    Urban = population > 150,000 recently, and
    Rural = population < 10,000 recently
    Choose pairs of urban/rural so that the paired rural area is “nearby”
    (approx: no closer than 40km, no further than 100km)
    Keep only those urban /rural pairs where annual data is available for the entire duration, (say) 100 years. Look at temperature change, year-to-year separately for the two groups.
    In both cases graph the trend (use an acceptable technique, such as least squares).

    There is a study already floating around the internet which claims to have done this, for the period from 1900 to recent, using GSFC NASA (giss) data. (“raw” or “homogenized”? U.S. or World? I don’t recall). Their results showed basically no temperature change in the rural areas over the entire duration, and that, at the same time, urban annual temperature change grew steadily over that same period. I noticed no other commentary so far as implications. However ….

    Assuming their research was okay, would not the results then imply that there has been no “global” warming? The nearby rural areas are not showing any temperature increase, not even from their neighboring urban area. By the same reasoning the increasing change in urban area temperatures must be due only to the increasing size (presumably only up to some max) of population. The urban heating is undoubtedly due to man, but it’s been (at least so far) not significant enough to show up globally. Of course, when the two subsets of data are merged, what results is a representation that does show an overall rise in temperature. It is this “global” representation which provides “warmists” with at least a vague claim that there is anthropogenic global (rather than urban) warming.

    Satellite temperature readings, which have shown no discernable temperature increase for the two past decades, perhaps (?) deal with temperature readings of larger areas in which case this anomaly remains hidden.

  47. gillt

    Well gosh Denis, if I misstated that that you just tried to compare an as yet to be linked to YouTube video “study” by a father and son (because that was all the non-evidence you brought to the table) to decades of climate science please point out where I went adrift. Pleeeeeease!

  48. Busiturtle

    gilt:48 Surely you understand that when floating ice melts the liquid level remains the same.

    This law, known as Archimedes Principle dates to 200 BC.

  49. gillt

    aahhahhahaa, pretty nifty Denis how you left out the father and son reference the second time you copy-and pasted your comment. This is as good a time as any to walk away with your tail between your legs.

  50. Gilt: If you read what I’m suggesting, you’ll note that I am stating — IF there description of the study is valid (which was pretty obviously carried out by whoever the dad was, and was a helluva lot better organized and communicated, in terms of what they did than anything CRU ever provided) THEN…… (do you understand the IF THEN phrase?)

    what follows is interesting and may be true.

    About the only intelligent thing you could have said is “interesting if true, but I don’t believe it”. I’d take no issue with that, but I understand this is your religious substitute, and so you take umbrage without thinking. Try a little harder. May drink more coffee?

  51. robotech master

    Its nice to see the warmmongers out in force.

    Climategate to anyone with even a high school level understanding of science all but debunks global warming/cooling/climate change… whatever propaganda term they have created this week.

    The simple fact is that the people who claim that global warming/cooling/climate change is real is based on heavily edited and controlled data. They are the same people who in the 30s were sucked in by the “consensus” produced by the “highly educated and respected” german “scientists”.

    In fact the easiest way to see why global warming is such a joke is merely to review many of the papers published at that time and how germany’s propaganda arm spun them… its as if they read Goebbels play book and just played the same game.

    The end run is that it only take a few guys to create a “consensus” that leads to the death of millions through socialism… funny how in the 1930s we had a scientific consensus by socialists and later millions were enslaved or died… and today another scientific consensus is forming and it pretty easy to see that in a short time they seek to enslave millions and kill millions as well.

  52. gillt

    Busiturtle, you can’t be serious?!?!

    You are aware of the fact that the ice in Antarctica, Greenland and much of the arctic circle is on land that is above sea level? And you’ve conveniently forget the thermal expansion of water as it warms. Please move your ice-cube in a glass slide-show along and try to be smart somewhere else.

  53. Woody

    “… and there is, in my mind, little effective counter.” How about transparency?

    For years there the skeptical scientists have been asking for transparency in data management, computer source code and documentation. That’s pretty much it. Instead they’ve been met with obfuscation, denegration, secrecy and unprofessionalism. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is why Morano and others have been so effective. Finally, the general public is getting the rest of the story and are free to make their own judgments. If CRU and GISS are confident they’re correct then they should subject their code and data to a military grade peer review. Surely they shouldn’t have a problem meeting the same standards as would a defense contractor who builds a radar system, right?

  54. It’s up to the AGW advocates to prove their theory. I haven’t seen anybody even try.

    In the meantime the skeptics have come up with some good questions, which must also be answered. I haven’t seen anybody try, like true believers, they call the skeptics “climate change deniers”, “flat-earthers”, you name it.

    There were pretty clearly higher temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period. This was determined by a variety of scientists using ice cores, tree rings, and plan old historical evidence, such as numerous vinyards at latitudes where even today grapes can’t be grown. Mankind clearly wasn’t having much impact back then. I haven’t EVER heard one AGW proponent deal with that (but they’re really innovative with their name-calling). They have to, for starters, show the flaws in each of those varied investigations.

    Then there are NOAA’s satellite temperature readings showing for the past two decades, that there’s been no discernable increase in temperature. (Since we’ve been moving away from an ice age 10,000 years ago, I’d hope to see more temperature increases, because when it starts going the other way we’ll really be in trouble.)

    The data (both current and historical) show that if CO2 has any relationship to temperature, it’s that temperature affects it, and not vice versa.

    Finally, after reading about the machinations performed on temperature readings, arguing about a .5C temperature change is arguing about the noise involved with all the problems associated with land based temperature measurements, and that’s before CRU gets involved and REALLY does some “machinating”.

    So, gillt, are you willing to address some of these issues? I took the time to give you some things to shoot at, and actually you’re the one who needs to prove your position.

  55. gillt

    Um no. If some guy and his kid want to play scientist and post it on YouTube that’s great, but it isn’t science. Scientists publish their results in peer-reviewed and refereed journals and not on the Internet. You really ought to try and understand that.

  56. gillt: You’re right about me leaving it out, and they deserve for the study (if it holds up).

    But I did admit that somebody else exposing that concept. Would it really matter if that was “father & son”, “mother & daughter”, “bunch of beer drinkers”. The issue isn’t really them gillt, (you still haven’t read and understand what I asked), it’s people like you who can’t even understand and IF-THEN construct.

  57. kadaka

    Excellent work, gillt, Marion Delgado, et al. The data, especially the raw data, can only be understood by climate scientists. McIntyre is no scientist, he’s a number cruncher, who looks at the data as mere numbers to be processed into graphs and figures and he checks for discrepancies. As he is not a trained climate science professional he is not competent to do so. This is the exact same reason why all hospital accountants are licensed medical doctors.

    The skeptics thank you for your amazing displays of logic in defending the Holy Works. Discussing here with replies that are variations of “You’re a big pootyhead” has also been a great help.

  58. gillt: you’re a bit mixed up about what “peer review” entails.

    The IPCC (CRU) is only now beginning to experience what is known as REAL peer review. The phony reviews by co-workers and contacts did not qualify.

    I’m waiting for you to address the issues I brought up …. ???

  59. Woody

    The other tired and hackneyed assumption that Mr. Mooney makes is that all skeptics get their information from Rush Limbaugh and other blowhards. This sophomoric attempt at besmirching skeptics only sways indepenedent thinkers towards the skeptical point of view. I’ve worked in the science and engineering fields for twenty years with so many wonderful, hard working people from all walks of life and political stripes. On the subject of AGW nearly all of my colleagues agree the work to date would get most people in private industry fired, regardles of their political affiliation. So go ahead and make your baseless assumptions, Mr. Mooney. There are plenty of conservative environmentalists out there, as well as heartless liberals. I’m sure you know some of each.

  60. gillt

    Please Denis, RealClimate has compiled refutations and explanations for every single one of your recycled and unoriginal decade-old arguments. The place is run by climate scientists. I’m just a biologist who knows enough about science to know you have no idea how science works.

  61. gillt

    Denis: “So, gillt, are you willing to address some of these issues?”

    What issues? You’ve made a list of assertions. On your way to learning how science works, you can begin by providing links to the primary research for every single statement you’ve made.

  62. gillt: while I remain a skeptic about most anything, so far as our conversation I think it’s appropriate to sign off with …. QED

  63. robotech master

    To 63. gillt Says:

    Realclimate has produced very good propaganda that sounds nice but doesn’t explain anything. As to your climate its run by “climate scientists” thats also debatable since its run by the very people who were caught red handed in e-mails trying to hide/delete data and have had a long running campaign of censoring any questions or opinions… both in private and on that very site.

    Realclimate is about as trustworthy site for dealing with science as the catholic church’s documents stating that the earth was flat and the science is settled.

  64. gillt: Now you’re calling some website a bunch of liars. Your response seems a bit incoherent, but I’ll make a try to respond….

    “sounds nice but doesn’t explain anything”…? that would seem to be your problem, not mine.

    The information I provided you is all over the network. Nothing unique about RealClimate.
    The book “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years” by Singer & Avery has all sorts of evidence about past climates, including the bit about Greenland and vinyards further north, and the Medieval Warming Period. Singer is an emeritus professor at Univ of VA, and also a professor at GMU. I don’t recall anything about Avery. The information reported in his book is from various scientific studies, many of which were done for other purposes unrelated to global warming (it wasn’t popular then).

    And, good lord, the people hiding /deleting data, fudging numbers, are the people at IPCC, in particular the CRU folks, not RealClimate. The guys promoting the concept that you evidently favor – global warming are the CRU folks. You are REALLY out of touch !

    I don’t know much about RealClimate, so I’ll let them and their people defend themselves, but given your lack of knowledge and inability to present anything like one FACT, I’m going to have to consider any further communication with you a hopeless waste of time.

    Lots of luck in the real world — you’re going to need it. Either that or a nice inheritance!

  65. robotech master

    To 66. Denis Ables

    Realclimate.org was setup by Mann and Jones and others… in fact many of the climategate e-mails have them talking about setting up the site and how best to “use” it among other things.

    Realclimate.org is basically the CRU/GISS/etc propaganda site setup solely to “disprove” the “deniers” and to help produce propaganda to reinforce the politics. Its a very closed site with a long history of deleting any questions that it doesn’t like and creating strawman arguments that it can debunk all under the guise of looking like legit science.

  66. Busiturtle Says:

    gilt:48 Surely you understand that when floating ice melts the liquid level remains the same.

    This would be a good point–if all the ice were floating. It’s not. The scientists aren’t actually as stupid as you seem to think. The projected sea level rise is from melting land ice, not melting sea ice.

  67. Denis Ables Says:

    It’s up to the AGW advocates to prove their theory. I haven’t seen anybody even try.

    No, it isn’t. It’s up to any scientist who thinks it’s wrong to disprove it. That’s how science works. Anyone who wants to show that it’s wrong is welcome to do so. It requires locating a flaw in the hypothesis, research, evidence, logic, and peer-reviewed publications.

    I haven’t seen anybody even try.

  68. bad Jim

    Cui bono is the question we ought to be asking. Who benefits from taking one side or the other in the climate change issue? On the one hand we have academics, who would probably be in different jobs if their motivations were primarily material, on the other hand giant oil and gas corporations with billions of dollars at stake. That’s a difficult question, isn’t it?

    Of course we could always, in time-honored fashion, put it down to shadowy international bankers (we don’t actually have to stipulate that they’re Jewish, it’s understood) or to One World Government (an oldie but a goodie), but perhaps it’s not even necessary to specify the identity of the foe.

  69. 67 robotech: Phil Jones doesn’t blog at RealClimate. RC actually linked to a Popular Mechanics article that was critical of Jones.

    And if you’re convinced AGW is a farce, would you like to put some money on it?

  70. Funny

    kadaka,

    You say “As he is not a trained climate science professional he is not competent to do so. This is the exact same reason why all hospital accountants are licensed medical doctors.”

    I must be missing the joke. A professional number cruncher can’t understand climate numbers like a regular accountant can’t understand hospital money? That’s completely insane.

  71. robotech master

    To 68. Chris Dunford

    Umm your very confused AGW ppl are claiming that the earth is warming due to CO2 they must PROVE that the earth is warming do to CO2 the non-believes don’t have to do jack… thats called science. The cultists claim the earth is warming from XXX prove it…

    70. Brian Schmidt

    Never said jones blogged at realclimate… and I never said realclimate doesn’t attempt to look non-bias… the best and most believe propaganda is the kind that looks fair…

    And yes AGW under al-gore ideals is completely false. AGW under the IPCC models is complete false.

    AGW under the very very tiny amount that we put in could maybe be true… however thats not the type of AGW talked about by realclimate/al gore/ IPCC/ etc.

    I will take any bet vs any al gore science and vs most of the IPCC science depending on the section.

  72. gillt

    Denis Ablesl, I can’t make heads or tails of your last post so I think it’s safe to assume it’s past your bedtime. Evidence for AGW is compiled in journals such as Nature and Science and many others, but I’m growing confident you don’t read science journals. And the data you said was fudged, that’s another in your long list of assertions you’ve failed to support with evidence.

  73. gillt

    Robotech: “Realclimate has produced very good propaganda that sounds nice but doesn’t explain anything.”

    Humor us and list all the things RC fails to explain.

  74. Funny

    Could there be a reason that there is not much peer reviewed literature coming from the skeptical scientists?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  75. robotech master

    To 76. gillt

    Sure please look at the following link http://www.realclimate.com

    Open up the first thread for comments you can find and bingo propaganda.

  76. robotech master

    Well that was self-pwnage

    link should be http://www.realclimate.org

  77. robotech master

    To 77. Funny

    Anyone who’s even been to college knows that peer review for “soft sciences” is a joke… and global warming is a very “soft science”.

    Plus on levels such as the data collection and so forth to do real peer review would take months and cost money… no one is going to do that expect some minor grad students. Peer review is at its most basic mob rule… a famous scientist who got majorly bad peer review was Galileo.. he was peer reviewed into jail using the same tactics that the cultists are using today.

  78. Hey Bad Jim:
    Here in Australia, it is graduation season. If you want to see where the $$ is, consider the following starting salaries for geologists fresh out of university:
    PhD student (required for work in climate): ~$20,000
    Government geologist: ~$55,000
    Exploration geologist (gold, uranium, base metals) ~$75,000
    Exploration geologist (coal) ~$100,000

    Yup, definitely the climatologists who are in it for the money.

  79. bad Jim

    Love ya, Lab Lemming. If only creationists could be so neatly typed.

  80. Marion Delgado

    CHRIS AND SHERIL:

    “Jochen” is a bot, just so you know. At the exact same time, the bot spammed the same “comment” to two different posts, the Morano one, and the Blackburn one:

    “The Continuing, Unfortunate Effectiveness of Marc Morano”
    5.   Jochen Says: 
December 17th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
    Only the fools and the dead don’t change their opinions. I changed my mind after 6 years of believing in AGW, and in my current opinion AGW is bunk science at best. The change came after reading a dozen or so books and countless online articles on both sides of the issue. If they should ever present solid evidence based on uncorrupted science, I will change my mind again. Until then, I will do my duty to society as an educated and rational human being and remain a Skeptic!

    “Marsha Blackburn Takes Over for Inhofe on the Climate Issue”
    6.   Jochen Says:
    December 17th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
    Only the fools and the dead don’t change their opinions. I changed my mind after 6 years of believing in AGW, and in my current opinion AGW is bunk science at best. The change came after reading a dozen or so books and countless online articles on both sides of the issue. If they should ever present solid evidence based on uncorrupted science, I will change my mind again. Until then, I will do my duty to society as an educated and rational human being and remain a Skeptic!

    Also, the person using the bot may be trying to pretend it’s Jochen Weller, which would be pretty contemptible. In that case, this would be like the identity theft done by conservative industry groups lately where they faked mailings from groups that did not support them.

  81. Funny Says:

    Could there be a reason that there is not much peer reviewed literature coming from the skeptical scientists?

    It’s lovely how the WSJ and the rest of you leave out the context of the emails about “putting Climate Research out of business”. You omit the key phrase from the email: “crap science”. They were upset not about CR publishing skeptical papers but about CR publishing crappy papers.

    Their feeling, which is very clear from the emails, was that the peer review process at CR had gone off the rails (and it’s worth noting that several of CR’s editors resigned as the result of the Soon/Baliunas paper getting published). If that was what they believed, then their suggested action was not only not unethical, it was right: shun it. Don’t write for it and don’t cite it.

    It was, in essence, a boycott. The right, especially O’Reilly, adores boycotts and calls for them at the drop of a hat. I don’t see a lot of complaints about those attempts to “put people out of business”.

    The fact of the matter is that the few serious dissenting scientists such as Lindzen have no difficulty getting published. That’s because his papers typically aren’t crappy.

    So. please show me where in the emails where Mann or anyone else suggest boycotts of the journals that published Lindzen’s dissenting-but-not-crappy papers. Thanks.

  82. robotech master Says:

    Umm your very confused AGW ppl are claiming that the earth is warming due to CO2 they must PROVE that the earth is warming do to CO2 the non-believes don’t have to do jack… thats called science. The cultists claim the earth is warming from XXX prove it…

    Sorry, but your understanding of how science works doesn’t seem to be very strong. Nothing is ever “proven” in science as it is in mathematics and logic. There is always some greater or lesser degree of uncertainty. Science can’t even “prove” that the apple you let go of will fall to the floor.

    Where there is disagreement–as there virtually always is–each side puts forth its arguments and bolsters them with evidence and research. Your idea that the “skeptics” can just sit back and do nothing is very wrong. It’s their responsibility to finds holes in the AGW hypothesis and back up those arguments with their own evidence and research. Until they do this, they have little or no scientific credibility.

  83. bilbo

    Since I’m seeing a lot of the same bunk from skeptics on this thread, and I’m geniuinely interested to see if it can be done, I’m going to repost my challenge to the skeptics here. This was from another thread, and after 30 posts has not even been attempted. Surely if you guys have this all figured out, this should be EASY!!!!

    This is a scientific topic we’re talking about, remember? You must debunk science with science, after all.

    But since you all seem concerned and upset at my characterizations of you, perhaps you can make a fool out of me. I’ll give you the chance. If you (or any other skeptic here) can do the following, I’ll never post on this blog again:

    1.) Discuss what scientific evidence exists for a role of humans in driving global climate via carbon emissions. Be specific. Don’t use Google – go from your head on this one (if you’re so certain about the truth/falsehood of this hypothesis, a skeptic should know, right?? I can certainly do this). Then find (in your opinion) ten of the most influential peer-reviewed articles that support this topic and cite them here, followed by a brief sentence or two on the conclusions of each that illustrates you have read them in full and understand them). You may use Google for this latter part.

    2.) Now that you’ve proven your familiarity with the state of the science, I would like you to debunk all of the points and evidentiary claims made in the papers from Part 1 above – and this is important – using hard data and statistical analyses that would likely stand the test of peer review. To be clear, I don’t want “the models are flawed.” I want why they’re flawed – backed up with a scientific analysis, complete with what tests you performed, how you performed them, what software you used, what your data sources were, and what the results were. Mentioning the Swifthack, psoting a graph from Microsoft Excel, and linking to skeptic blogs won’t cut it either. Again, if you claim that the science is incorrect, you must falsify it using rigorous science yourself, or you simply have no argument. (If you choose to post published, peer-reviewed articles for this section, fine. But they must debunk each and every one of the ten papers from part 1, and I still expect you to outline data, methods, tests, results, conclusions, etc. to prove you grasp them).

    The above may sound silly, but if you’re going to make sweeping claims about a well-supported tenet of science such as climate change, you had damn well better debunk science with science. Otherwise, you’re just blowing hot air. Unsubstantiated claims won’t cut it anymore folks. If you’re so certain that the overarching opinion of science on climate change is categorically wrong, I want to see why. A good, evidence-backed argument would certainly change my mind.

    This is your chance, skeptics. I’m waiting.

  84. John

    The truth is indeed hard to counter which is why Climate Depot is doing so well. It is now obvious that “climate scientists” were fudging the data.

  85. EyeRon

    Hey bilbo,

    Why don’t you use your science to predict a measurable event in some future time horizon?

    I understand the CRU has had some difficulty doing this, much to the exasperation of some of the scientists who cannot believe the earth is cooling!

  86. gillt

    Robotech: “Anyone who’s even been to college knows that peer review for “soft sciences” is a joke… and global warming is a very “soft science”.”

    Nope. Frankly “soft” science is an out-of-date and arbitrary distinction and it usually encompasses psychology, sociology and anthropology, etc.. Scientists studying climate change are climatologists, volcanists, geologists, (paleo) botanists, agronomists, glaciaogists, oceanographers, to name a few. Sorry, but these aren’t soft sciences by any definition.

  87. gillt

    Robotech: “Open up the first thread for comments you can find and bingo propaganda.”

    Followed your directive and found no zero propaganda in the comments section. There was however some whining coming from the math-illiterate denier camp. Debunking global warming or even sowing doubt among any but the most gullible will take a little more effort on your part.

    NEXT!

  88. bilbo

    In other words, EyeRon, you cannot disprove the established science. Instead it appears your motivations for denial are based not in science but instead in politics or some other sphere. I expected as much.

    Next?

  89. EyeRon

    Bilbo,

    A science that cannot be validated by actual measurements of the physical world it intends to explain is useless.

    Consider Einstein. Would he be revered today if data contradicted his theories? Einstein built a theory and published it for the world to see. Over the following decades scientists were able to INDEPENDENTLY confirm the fundamental truths he hypothesized.

    There is so much good climate research could do for the world. Unfortunately the process has been politicized and turned into an industry in and of itself. That COP15 is wholly political fare dominated by failed socialist and communist heads of state should bring shame and embarrassment to any scientist who is aligned with the movement.

  90. gillt

    At a very basic level of comprehension, can any of the deniers here cite the peer reviewed scientific literature on climate? I’m talking about primary data, not reviews. Failing to do so in 3, 2, 1…

  91. robotech master

    To 84. Chris Dunford

    No whats funny is that you leave out the context that they hate to have anyone who disagrees with them. Its also funny how the elites claim “crap science” only because it disagrees with with them the “experts”.

    You also leave out the context where they are attempting to delete info after getting FOI request… a context left out all the time.

    Them claiming crap science is no different then anyone else claiming crap science… expect all pro-AGW argument are crap science based on propaganda and data creation/cherry picking/heavy adjustment.

    To 85. Chris Dunford

    I do find it funny how your trying to correct me but aren’t even trying to correct the more absurd claim that I was correcting… wow theirs a shock a completely fake claim made by a nut ball is fully support but a counter claim is twisted out of context to fit the propaganda argument… where has that tactic been used before… o wait talking points 101 global warming cultists.

    The “skeptics” don’t have to do jack… the cultists want trillions of dollars put under their control along with enslaving the planet… that requires a pretty good burden of proof to be meet… now I know for ppl like you who welcome socialism/communism your all about… however some of us hate hitler and stalin and know what happens when they’re ideologies take hold… and its never pretty.

    To 86. bilbo

    No problem I’m happy to take you up on that.

    1) Their is no evidence of for a role of humans in driving global climate via carbon emissions period. Many papers cite very controlled experiments that yield results that can’t be matched in the real world. The next set of papers tries to argue that correlation is causation… making claims such as that the ice caps are melting thus its humans fault… they of course leave out that at times on earth the ice caps didn’t even exist for the most part and it had nothing to do with humans. In the very end run their isn’t even enough proof that the current warming/cooling isn’t completely natural. Nothing presented so far has made any real attempt to disprove that its a completely natural warming were going through. Lots of attempts… but nothing but crap science based on massive assumptions and guessing games.

    2) Is silly… their is no way to prove or disprove most of the models/statistical analyses because
    1. Not all the data/metatdata/etc are open to the public without requesting it through countless world government.
    2. Even when you get the data you don’t know if its raw, adjusted raw, raw homogenized, adjusted homogenized or any of at least 3 more “adjusted” levels.

    Then when you graph it if the graph comes up different its just claimed as “crappy science” because you didn’t follow the proper(but hidden) methods used by the elites/experts…. you know because they couldn’t possible make any mistakes or use the wrong math/graphing/etc methods themselves.

    Heres a better challenge… how about you present proof that the current warming is man made and not natural cycle/natural cause. O course the problem is not such proof exists.

  92. EyeRon Says:

    Why don’t you use your science to predict a measurable event in some future time horizon?

    I understand the CRU has had some difficulty doing this, much to the exasperation of some of the scientists who cannot believe the earth is cooling!

    A simple question, EyeRon: Why do you think that the earth is cooling? What numbers do you cite to make this claim?

  93. bilbo

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, gillt…but I agree with you 100%. I’ve yet to see a climate skeptic display a thorough knowledge of why the vast majority of scientists accept a role of humans in climate change.

    Seeing someone answer my challenge in post #86 would be a huge start.

  94. 89. bilbo Says:
    December 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
    In other words, EyeRon, you cannot disprove the established science. Instead it appears your motivations for denial are based not in science but instead in politics or some other sphere. I expected as much.

    Next?

    bilbo,
    You’re right – for the deniers it has NEVER been about science, or the scientific method or facts. It’s always been about politics, policy, and emotion. That’s why no one answers your challenege – they are not operating as if this is a science question, so they see no need to actually engage in science to deal with you.

    And the fact that you and others continue to meet emotional, politically motivated challenges to AGW with a retreat to fact-based science is why Chris and Sheril were RIGHT in Unscientific America and why we can’t yet defeat the deniers in the public square.

    Geez.

  95. EyeRon

    Perhaps the “deniers” just want some tangible proof that climate change models have predictive value.

  96. dark tent

    Funny says

    We’re engaged in a war of ideas and hypothesis, not a war of facts.

    That is funny.

    CO2 absorbs energy in the IR region of the spectrum (heat). (a scientific fact)

    Because of this physical property, CO2 in the atmosphere “traps” some of the energy radiated back toward space by the earth. (another fact)

    As a result o f the presence of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the air at the earth’s surface (global means surface temperature or GMST) is higher than it would otherwise be (another fact)

    The GMST has increased over the past century by about 0.75C. (another fact)

    Over the past 50 years, GMST has increased by about 0.55C (yet another fact)

    The rate of increase in GMST over the past 3 decades has been about 0.16C/decade (another fact)

    “Natural variations” (in solar output, clouds, cosmic rays, ENSO, land use, soot, etc) are not sufficient to account for the observed warming (another fact)

    The temperature of the stratosphere has been cooling in recent decades — for which we had the capability to monitor it (a fact, which even an increase in solar output would not cause, though solar output has actually remained essentially flat in recent decades — another fact)

    Greenland is losing ice mass.(fact)

    Globally, the vast majority of glaciers have lost significant ice mass over the past half century.(fact)

    The West Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass. (fact)

    The latest data indicate that East Antarctic ice sheet (which contains roughly 90 percent of Earth’s solid fresh water and previously considered stable) is also now losing ice.(fact)

    Sea level has been rising in recent decades .(fact)

    Arctic sea ice has lost 40% o f its volume over the past 3 decades.(fact)

    All of the above are not merely untested “hypotheses” or “just theories”.

    They are scientific facts, supported by countless scientific observations made by thousands of scientists over the years.

    That some choose to ignore these facts (which are amply documented in THOUSANDS of peer reviewed scientific papers) and instead choose to focus on what a few scientists said in a handful of emails says far more about them than it says about the science of climate change.

    In fact, it would come as no surprise to me at all that someone who would ignore such facts might also take an interest in the Tiger Woods affair.

  97. bilbo

    And the fact that you and others continue to meet emotional, politically motivated challenges to AGW with a retreat to fact-based science is why Chris and Sheril were RIGHT in Unscientific America and why we can’t yet defeat the deniers in the public square.

    I hate to say it, Phillip, but I’m not “retreating” to fact-based science – I’ve been there all along. That’s because I base my opinions of the world on (shocker!) facts – not what my favorite political talking head tells me to. As the skeptics here continue to dance around providing evidence to back up their claims (some of them even saying they don’t have any), I’m beginning to see them as less of a threat and more of an irrelevant herd of unthinking political pawns. Those types of people attract attention, but they ultimately get ignored when it counts….as we’re beginning to see in politics.

  98. EyeRon

    dark tent,

    And yet with all these facts life is pretty good and your models still cannot predict the climate 12 months out, let alone 50 years.

  99. bilbo

    robotech in #94:

    A simple question – how many IPCC assessments have you read? I don’t care if you agree with them/trust them or not. Your post in #94 is absolutely chock full of lies, half-truths, and damn lies when it comes to the state of the science. If you had baseline familiarity with the science, you’d know you’re simply spewing nonsense.

    By the way, the favorite line is this: “their (sic) is no way to prove or disprove most of the models/statistical analyses…”

    So, in other words, you just said that no proof exists invalidating climate models (which, I’ll add, are but one part of the evidence for AGW – another of your lies) because you simply assume they cannot be invalidated. A rather self-gratifying assumption, wouldn’t you think?

    Again I cahllenge you: prove me wrong. Don’t just simply say I am. Back yourself up, denialist.

  100. bilbo

    EyeRon the Factless Denialist:

    Dark tent just posted over 10 facts after you asserted that no evidence exists. Your response?

    “And yet with all these facts life is pretty good”

    Wow. You are now EyeRon the Irrelevant Denialist.

  101. gillt

    EyeRon: “And yet with all these facts life is pretty good and your models still cannot predict the climate 12 months out, let alone 50 years.”

    Shorter EyeRon: Because I know very little, it’s reasonable for me to dismiss the significance of what I don’t know.

    Case in point: if you knew anything you’d know that in 1988 Hansen predicted global temperature rise over a 12 year period, and was proven remarkably correct. http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/

    Robotech: “how about you present proof that the current warming is man made and not natural cycle/natural cause.”

    Until there is conclusive evidence published in the literature that AGW isn’t occurring, then the conclusion that it is occurring is due to overwhelming evidence.

    If you insist that the current warming is natural then the science is not on your side, therefore you must identify just what the mechanism is behind this alleged natural cycle. You’ve utterly and completely failed to do this.

  102. robotech master

    To 97. Philip H.

    For the global warming cultists it has NEVER been about science, or the scientific method or facts. It’s always been about politics, policy, and emotion. They are not operating as if this is a science question, so they see no need to actually engage in science to deal with you.

    And the fact that you and others like bilbo continue to present completely emotional, politically motivated challenges to science while we eveil deniers a retreat to fact-based science is why deniers have stomped global warming cultists in every public debate in America and why you can’t yet defeat the deniers in the public square.

    To 99. dark tent

    Correlation does not equal causation your arguments are meaningless.

    Also “Natural variations” (in solar output, clouds, cosmic rays, ENSO, land use, soot, etc) are completely and more likely sufficient to account for the observed warming.

    Fixed that one for you since your of course wrong and don’t understand the difference between weather(which is what your arguing) and climate which is what deniers are arguing.

  103. gillt

    Philip H: “And the fact that you and others continue to meet emotional, politically motivated challenges to AGW with a retreat to fact-based science is why Chris and Sheril were RIGHT in Unscientific America and why we can’t yet defeat the deniers in the public square.”

    Check the title of this post Philip. Other than being exasperated, Chris and Sheril don’t seem to have developed any coherent response to the backlash of Climategate. They are losing the war of words as we speak and have admitted as much. Btw, what happened to Mooney’s real-time reports from Copenhagen?

  104. Astralis

    No real counter? You’ve had the ‘scientists’ making up data to support your side for decades.

  105. EyeRon

    So in summary:

    (1) In the late 1980s a person predicted that the ongoing trend of warmer temperatures would continue. For a decade he was correct.

    (2) More increases in global temperatures were predicted. This has not happened. All predictions that “next year will be the hottest on record” have failed.

    (3) Despite the inability of climate researchers to produce an accurate model of the earth’s climate they KNOW man’s carbon based energy use is the driving force of climate change.

    (4) Despite the lack of evidence to validate this hypothesis the climate change community insists it is correct until proven wrong.

    As I stated at the beginning of this thread. If the data supported your assertions it would justify your claims and YOU would not have to worry about answering critiques.

  106. robotech master

    To 107. Astralis

    Bilbo/gillt say that fake data is ok with them as long as it support the the “correct” science.

  107. gillt

    Robotech: “Correlation does not equal causation your arguments are meaningless.”

    I got a good laugh out of dark tent’s list. He just showed a correlation between the fact-based side and the make-stuff-up-based side. Any further interpretation would likely be a projection of your own insecurity upon realizing this.

  108. dark tent

    EyeRon says “And yet with all these facts life is pretty good and your models still cannot predict the climate 12 months out, let alone 50 years.”

    That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding.

    You are basically confusing climate and weather.

    The models were not meant to “predict” what happens to temperatures (or anything else) “12 months out”. What you see from year to year (or even over a period of time less than about 2 decades) is dominated by the ups and downs of El Nino, la nina and other “weather” events. These are essentially random, which means the climate models can not hope to predict them — nor are they intended to.

    Over a longer period of time, the ups and downs (the noise) “wash out” — balance one another — and what one is left with is the “signal” (if there is any), eg any increase in temperature due to increasing CO2 level.

    The latter — the change in the signal over several decades — is the ONLY thing the climate models are meant to “predict”. *

    *because of the above weather noise issue, “Global warming stopped in 1998″ meme( or versions thereof: “The earth has been cooling over the past ten years”) is actually nonsense. Ten years is simply not a sufficient period of time to conclude what is happening with the climate.

    And the “prediction” of the models is never absolute. There is always some uncertainty (error bar) associated with it**, which means it might be as big as “X” or as little as “y” but it most probably lies somewhere between the two values.

    **The uncertainty results both because we can’t predict exactly how much CO2 humans will pump into the atmosphere in the future and because we don’t know precisely how much the temperature goes up for a given increase in CO2 — though we have a pretty good idea the latter value is about 3 deg C per doubling of atmospheric CO2.

  109. bilbo

    And the fact that you and others like bilbo continue to present completely emotional, politically motivated challenges to science while we eveil deniers a retreat to fact-based science is why deniers have stomped global warming cultists in every public debate in America and why you can’t yet defeat the deniers in the public square.

    I find that statement amusing, robotech, seeing as how this comment thread has seen AGw proponents discussing multiple lines of evidence and has not seen a single skeptic provide scientific evidence to support their side.

    Your evidence, denialist?

    Bilbo/gillt say that fake data is ok with them as long as it support the the “correct” science

    You evidence to support this claim? Where did gillt or I say such a thing? Suport yourself, robotech. You are now both a denier AND a lying piece of trash. Not a good combination.

  110. bilbo

    Dark tent just destroyed you in #111, EyeRon – bit by bit by lying denialist bit.

    If you have a counter that can be backed up with data, give it to us. Support yourself, denialist!

  111. Seminatrix

    This has been a fun thread to observe from afar. The quality of the skeptics posting on this particular thread has been abysmal: terrible misconceptions of what science says about climate change, terrible misconceptions about models, accusations that models are all scientists have in support of AGW, terrible misconceptions of how even basic science operates, and arguments that boils down to the skeptics’ politcal opinions when they finally get wholly sodomized by evidence from a clear-thinking commenter.

    What’s even more titillating? Watching bilbo and gillt – two posters who seemingly hate each other on other threads – team up to slap the denialists around like elementary school children. This is better entertainment than my HBO subscription….

  112. EyeRon

    Does anyone else find it interesting that the simple act of questing the conventional wisdom on this forum gets one labeled as a liar?

    Again, if the data supported the hypothesis it would speak for itself. That this movement relies so much on ridicule of skeptics, broad, philosophically based generalizations of what is science and repetitive self-affirmation and self-applause is very counterproductive to the goal of education, assuming that is a goal.

  113. gillt

    #101 EyeRon: “your models still cannot predict the climate 12 months out”

    #108 EyeRon: “(1) In the late 1980s a person predicted that the ongoing trend of warmer temperatures would continue. For a decade he was correct.”

    This is too easy!

  114. EyeRon

    Gilt,

    If the feat cannot be replicated than it was most likely the result of luck rather than skill.

  115. gillt

    EyeRon: “Again, if the data supported the hypothesis it would speak for itself.”

    But it’s already been pointed out to you that you don’t know the data, so why would I expect you to know if it supports an hypothesis? You’ve given me no reason to hold you to such a standard.

    Repost from #91: “At a very basic level of comprehension, can any of the deniers here cite the peer reviewed scientific literature on climate? I’m talking about primary data, not reviews. Failing to do so in 3, 2, 1…”

  116. EyeRon

    Gilt, bilbo et all,

    Have you read Taleb’s “The Black Swan”?

    Given the bet of whether the future climate will be as predicted by your “science” or some other way the smart bet would be the latter.

    Just saying you know far less than you think you do.

  117. gillt

    So when asked to cite climate research in the scientific literature done by scientists you cite a popular book written by a non-scientist. You’re too misinformed to understand how unschooled this demonstrates you to be.

  118. bilbo

    gillt said:

    Repost from #91: “At a very basic level of comprehension, can any of the deniers here cite the peer reviewed scientific literature on climate? I’m talking about primary data, not reviews. Failing to do so in 3, 2, 1…”

    For the record, this is now the fifth time EyeRon has been asked, by three different posters, to either provide evidence that he understands why science supports a role of human in climate change OR to provide evidence to back up his argument that humans do not.

    For the record, this is the fifth time Eyeron has avoided doing so. That should speak volumes. (And, by the looks of Recently Enlightened on Chris’s latest post, it already has).

    Nice job, Eyeron.

  119. bilbo

    Does anyone else find it interesting that the simple act of questing the conventional wisdom on this forum gets one labeled as a liar?

    Incorrect, EyeRon. You are a denialist, but that alone does not make you a liar. This, however, does:

    Posted by Eyeron: “If the data supported your assertions it would justify your claims and YOU would not have to worry about answering critiques.

    Interesting. So by simply questioning something, that means it is false and unsupported? That’s akin to saying that if I question that the sky is blue, it suddenly is not.

    That’s a lie, my friend. Or, more correctly, piss-poor logic. Hence, you are a lying denialist.

  120. EyeRon

    One cannot disprove that which has not been proven.

    What has not been proven is whether science can accurately model the earth’s climate.

    Lacking this knowledge any formulation of a climate policy is bogus as one is acting in ignorance.

  121. Seminatrix

    You are deflecting again, young EyeRon. You’re using models as your crutch.

    The evidence for AGW is not solely model-based. In fact, if you will actually read the scientific literature (which gillt and bilbo have skillfully fooled you into admitting you have not), you’ll find that the scientific evidence for AGW would stand if we ignored models altogether.

    You however, are arguing something that is mistaken at best, and a lie at worst: that models provide the ony evidence for AGW. Educate yourself, EyeRon, and you’ll sound like less of a fool.

  122. EyeRon

    Lacking a model of how the climate will perform how can one propose countermeasures to AGW with any confidence that they will work?

  123. Seminatrix

    Ah, another deflection! Now EyeRon implicityl acknowledges non-model based data and instead shifts the goalposts to remediation!

    You are a skilled shill, EyeRon. How much do they pay you?

  124. EyeRon

    Do you have a model or not?

  125. Seminatrix

    Deflections, deflections, deflections! EyeRon the trained shill seems to be full of them!

    First off, you didn’t ask for a model, EyeRon. You just blathered about them and pretended that your one-sentence reply rebukes them all.

    Secondly, models don’t prove AGW alone. Not at all. Blather all you want, but you’ve got nothing here, and you know it.

    Back up what you’re saying with analyzed proof, and I’ll concede to you.

  126. The Accuser

    EyeRon’s last 5 or 6 posts have all been variations on a similar theme: a one-sentence reply about models that does not vary, despite being successfully refuted by over three different posters.

    When someone does this, no matter the topic, this is usually a sign that the person has lost the argument and is flailing indiscriminately, trying to get the last word in.

    This case seems to be no different.

  127. robotech master

    To 110. gillt

    Your whole comment is based on projection and a keep lack of understanding of basic science.

    To 111. dark tent

    lol more you don’t know the difference between climate and weather… the models used by the IPCC are solely designed and based off weather…climate is long term which none of the models or claims are.

    To 112. bilbo

    Please you present nothing more then a handful of bones and argue that because they fall in the shape of a bird that a bird is going to destroy the earth…this comment thread has seen anti-AGW proponents discussing multiple lines of evidence and has not seen a single enabler/warmmonger provide scientific evidence to support their side.

    Your evidence, enabler?

    To 114. Seminatrix

    Funny I find it the other way around the global warming cultists are getting slapped so hard in this thread I’m surprised they haven’t run to the book of gore to renew they’re vows.

  128. EyeRon Says:

    One cannot disprove that which has not been proven.

    To quote P.G. Wodehouse, “What frightful horse-radish.”

    I can quickly disprove that an apple will fall upward if released from my hand. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever proved that apples do fall upward when released.

    Disproving things does not require that they be proved first. In fact, if something has been proved, how can it be subsequently disproved? If it is, then it was never really proved in the first place, was it?

  129. Numerous posts from EyeRon since 10:13AM. None answer the question I asked at that time:

    A simple question, EyeRon: Why do you think that the earth is cooling? What numbers do you cite to make this claim?

    That should be easy enough to answer, shouldn’t it?

  130. Steve

    Skeptics, time to move on. Even in the face of Climategate, AGW proponents will find it hard to accept that their theory has somehow been, at best, overstated or, at worst, contrived. Attempting to convince them so is, at this time, a futile effort. So let it go. Instead, let us remember the goal that we, as followers of the scientific method, have always had: to have ALL of the raw data and ALL of the analysis code released for review and testing. With full transparency and no tolerance for hubris, we can much more quickly determine the extent to which man’s actions are (or are not) affecting the planet. Isn’t that, bottom line, what we are ALL after?

  131. robotech master

    To 133. Steve

    Look these cultists got sucked into a fake religion…they don’t want to face reality and it going take a long time before they can want up from the fantasy world they live however we must make an effort to educate them. Its going to take decades to undo the brainwashing that they have been put through but someday they will wake up and see that science and won and their cult’s dreams of global warming are nothing more then a dream… unless of course they decide to drink the kool-aid…

    But again thats the choice they have to make…

  132. Funny

    Dark Tent,

    in your post #99, you missed the point. It’s not what is happening that many, if not most of us are arguing, it’s why it’s happening. And the why is simply a hypothesis. And that’s a fact.

  133. Excerpt from today’s Washington times – re Hadley Center for Climate Change, now found doing the same stuff as IPCC / CRU

    “First it was the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia playing fast and loose with scientific data, manipulating it to produce desired results while discarding much of the raw data. Now, according to a report in Britain’s Telegraph newspaper, the Hadley Center for Climate Change, part of the government’s British Meteorological Office, did some data-cooking as well, leaving out temperature records for about 40 percent of the Russian landmass in calculating recent temperature trends,” John Steele Gordon writes at CommentaryMagazine.com.

    “Since Russia constitutes 12.5 percent of the world’s landmass, much of that a byword for brutal winters, that is no small omission. And the data from weather stations that were omitted do not show substantial global warming in recent decades,” Mr. Gordon said.

  134. There’s no doubt that AGW is affected by politics. Liberals believe that there should be a big transfer of wealth to the poorer developing nations. They also seem to love the idea of global governance. Global warming fits right in with that. Conservatives see claims of AGW as another likely phony crisis (eliminating the use of DDT caused millions of unnecessary deaths) and we all know that no government, no bureaucracy, and no politician will waste any such crisis, real or imagined. Heavens, they usually have to work hard to create such a crisis (“expanding home ownership comes to mind). Mencken’s writings include a beautiful sentence on this very issue. Conservatives are naturally suspicious of government and see any increase in its power as bad. Liberals are very suspicious of big industries, if not capitalism itself.

    To deal with AGW, if it turns out to be real, involves unbelievably high costs. Costs high enough to crash the economies of industrial nations.

    Then there is the issue of “following the money”. It seems that both sides have found their own separate money path. Liberals believe that the existing energy industry is financing all the skeptics. Conservatives see Al Gore already making millions on cap & trade, and it’s hardly yet started. They also see governments and hence politicians anxious to impose new rules, new taxes, you name it. They also know that (at least in the US) scientists can easily obtain grants and contracts related to climate investigations only if their agenda is to promote AGW. Skeptics just aren’t getting any of this dough. Not only that, aspiring scientists who may otherwise be skeptics are keeping their mouth shut in hopes of retaining existing funds or obtaining funds in the future.

    We can’t do much about global warming unless a significant component of it has been caused by man. Is anybody claiming they want to take on mother nature? The “warmists” rely on surface temperature recordings, and evidently remain in denial about what the Anglia Climate Research Unit group has been doing. And now it turns out that the Hadley Climate Research folks have also been guilty of similar transgressions. About 40% of Russia’s temperature recordings, mostly from cold areas, most of which show little warming over quite a long period, were not included. Even supposing both Anglia and Hadley were completely unbiased and competent (both assumptions really a stretch!) how can anyone not admit that the data and models they produced are worthless. That work must be redone, and by new players who have been very carefully chosen. This time every step in the investigation must be transparent, well documented, and the process subject to real peer review.

    The argument that AGW is “settled science”, or that the majority of scientists agree about AGW is ludicrous. Every scientist out there (and most others with any education) understands that science is never settled and certainly not determined by votes. What’s more, there are now some 131,000 scientists, skeptics of AGW, with their signature appearing on a petition held by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. It’s far from clear which side has the majority, although it really isn’t relevant.

    There is a distinction to be made between the “proof” or “evidence” offered by AGW and what the skeptics have to do. Claiming that there is AGW, given that the costs to address that problem may wipe out the world’s economy, is very different from, say, Einstein introducing the concept of relativity. There was plenty of time for scientists to understand his argument, time to point out possible flaws, and time to investigate and to begin confirming his claim. Neither Albert nor his government backers insisted that the world must now immediately introduce new policies, new laws, more taxing and budget trillions to solve that problem. AGW, if it is actual, implies very costly actions. Therefore that claim needs to be thoroughly verified before taking very costly actions.

    Also, at least some of the evidence claimed for AGW is merely “GW”, or is clearly offset by other evidence. The melting ice on part of the Antarctic is apparently offset by additional snow cover on the rest of that continent, which is many times the size of the western sector. Other claims are not evidence at all, but simply correlations. Computer models are hardly evidence of anything., Models are verified only by the actual outcome of their predictions.

    Before governments take some action it is incumbent on the AGW proponents to provide convincing evidence, not only that there is global warming, but that a significant component of that is due to human activity. We’re not likely to be successful dealing with what mother nature is doing. On the other hand, it is true that Obama’s science czar did propose some years ago that we need to get more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to encourage plant growth, and that we should do that …. by creating global warming!)

    The problem is that some of the most enthusiastic AGW proponents happen to be governmental entities and they want to proceed NOW. It doesn’t help that the major news media seems not interested in providing much coverage. The level of debate on AGW would hardly involve any heat if there was not this rush to action. Most of us would be happy to sit back and wait for the science to actually settle. Of course, that takes a long time when most governments are financing only one side of the investigation and the major news media (certainly in the case of the U.S.) is getting so biased that it’s ridiculous.

    All we seem to agree on at this point is that man is likely contributing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and there has been a slight bit of warming (if any) but it apparently leveled off about 15 years ago, and actually cooling in the past 8 years. Linking those CO2 increases to temperature increases is a non-starter. CO2 is a trace gas. Water Vapor represents a much larger part of the atmosphere and has much more impact on temperature than CO2. In fact, if there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature it is that CO2 in the atmosphere increases after an earlier temperature increase.

    Satellite readings apparently point to no warming during the past two decades. The warmists are either denying this, or arguing that a couple of decades are hardly relevant, that it’s just a short term trend. Perhaps, but keep in mind that the last two decades show the most increase in CO2, so this should be the most relevant period if the AGW claim is true, that man creates CO2, and CO2 creates heat. Where’s the heat? It’s a missing and that’s a travesty, according to one of the CRU culprits.

    We know that the land surface temperature recordings are a mess, and even if all the related ancillary activities for this type of temperature measurement are completely “honest” there are still serious questions. These revolve around the “statistics” used to “homogenize” the data. If readings are missing for some period at one site, averages of nearby sites are used to impute a value for that site. How much error has just been introduced? Probably not much in any single cases, but what percentage of the raw data actually gets revised? (In Australia, in at least one discussed case data was used for imputation from the nearest other site which was 500 miles away!) Whether or not data is imputed for a site, how much of an error might have been introduced? Some of the observers out there believe that the entire debate actually revolves around all the diddling with the raw data.

    The AGW folks can argue that the past two decades of no increase – in fact some cooling – is just a short term trend. Possibly, but that would seem to at least be justification for moving slowly. Is it not prudent to delay implementing costly policy changes without first obtaining better evidence? Of course shrugging off short term trends is also available to the skeptics. Why not believe that what little warming we’ve recently seen is itself probably just a short term trend, and so not relevant?

    It’s recently been determined that the Sahara Desert will, within a relatively short time start blooming, if it has not already started. It’s a 20,000 year cycle, involving a radical conversion from mountainous sand dunes to greenery and marshes and back to big sand dunes. This recently discovered cycle has happened numerous times already. If this anticipated change to greening (which evidently happens relatively fast at the terminal points) had happened about now, and the research on the Sahara’s past history was not yet known, there’s little doubt that such an event would have been interpreted as evidence of global warming.

  135. robotech master

    To 137. Denis Ables

    Very good write up however I would argue one point with you

    “To deal with AGW, if it turns out to be real, involves unbelievably high costs. Costs high enough to crash the economies of industrial nations.”

    If global warming is real man made or not its a myth that it can’t be fixed without huge costs/destroying global economies/granting complete government control.

    This is one of the greatest “tells” about global warming cultism. The claim that the “only” way to fix the problem is to impose socialism/communism. A great run down of some suggested fixes was done by the guy who wrote freakonomics. He suggested a few ways to cheaply and easily fix the problem… he was of course meet with harsh reaction from the cultists because his fixes didn’t include massive oppression and communism.

    According to the global warming cultists the only way to fix the problem is with communism… they say so as much in “hopenhangen”. CO2 to them has become the embodiment of the “evil” they oppose… capitalism. Global warming like so many other communist causes isn’t about anything more then defeating the enemy that has bested them from the moment communism was created… capitalism and CO2 is just the latest in a long history of witch hunt strawman create to push for communism.

  136. The Accuser

    robotech:

    I’ve seen you write about 10 posts now, and none of them are substantiated with anything.

    Do you have any evidence to back up your arguments, or are you arguing from authority? You have zero credibility currently.

  137. Susan A

    Congrats to Chris Mooney and his anti-science cabal. You got as much out of Copenhagan as you deserved. Enjoy round 1. There’s more to come.

  138. robotech master

    To 139. The Accuser

    Lol I have far again again more credibility then you or any of the other cultists in this thread… my arguments are based on science and facts many of which most high school students should be able to understand(funny how the cultists can’t seem to grasp the “advanced” science).

  139. To: Robotech

    You may have a point about lessor costs, because the current estimates involve steps that must be taken to reduce CO2. Since it’s pretty clear that CO2 is not the problem, the cost estimates could indeed be much lower (or higher!).

    If it’s not man-made, then warming shouldn’t be a concern because we have a pretty good feeling about mother nature’s warming cycles. It’s a fairly safe assumption that we’re only repeating one of those, which in recent times (the last million years or so) are perhaps a bit warmer, such as the Medieval Warming Period which would only need to be enjoyed rather than addressed.

  140. robotech master

    To 142. Denis Ables

    As more and more ppl look at the problem and debate more and more fixes are being suggested… this is more so since non-CO2 hating/non-communism believes are joining the debate.

    Even if global warming is not man made it may still be a threat(though currently even under the man made projection its zero threat for the next 300+ years and more realistically benefits humans).

    However weather control tech is important research as a whole… now while the cultists claim we can control the global weather/climate now most sane ppl have a hard time believing that. That doesn’t mean with some effort we can’t in the next 30 years or so get to the point when we can control weather to a small extent and combat either dangerous AGW or straight GW if it becoming a threat on the same token we can combat global cooling(a far more dangerous outcome/threat to ppl).

  141. robotech master

    A great piece written by mann at WaPO… and of course the comment section is eating the cultists alive.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html

    The MANN behind the curtain has been exposed and the cultists are losing horribly…

  142. robotech master
  143. Mac Lorry

    Yes, CO2 forcing is a real, but so is the shifting emissivity of the Earth and its atmosphere and the two physical phenomena negate each other to a large degree. So what’s the main cause of climate change? Well the answer to that question is shown in this six part YouTube video titled “The Cloud Mystery”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related

    Don’t worry it changes to English after a minute or two. Until then, read the subtitles.

    Of course if you would prefer to keep your head in the sand then move on.

  144. To: dark tent:
    I am responding to the numerous “facts” you have listed in commentary #99. Let me start by saying that I too was under the impression, at least until recently, that we were still in one of our warming periods. After all, these periods have been a regular occurrence for about the past one million years. (see “UnstoppableGlobal Warming: Every 1500 Years”, by Singer and Avery). But seeing as how there’s been no warming now for the past couple of decades, the warming period may have ending. (I offer a bit of anecdotal evidence as well. We’re digging ourselves out of 20 inches of snow here in northern Virginia right now.)

    Some scientists claim that the earth is currently in a “CO2 famine”; that, on a geologic scale it has almost never been this low. And, during these extended periods when it was much higher, there were no apparent problems. CO2 is a trace gas that currently represents less than 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere. It does not appear to be a significant problem in terms of its impact on the earth’s temperature. On average the atmosphere is made of 2 or 3% of water vapor, also a “greenhouse gas”. There’s about 50 to 75 times more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. What we do know is that, for plants, more is better. (Here’s a “fact”: some years ago, Obama’s science czar recommended that we set about generating more CO2, and that it must be done by creating ….. global warming!)

    The very basis for the claims of the proponents of AGW is that man is contributing to the CO2 buildup which (they claim) causes global warming. It turns out that not only has there been no recent warming, but CO2 is, in any event, an unlikely cause of warming. Both parts of the claim have been rendered questionable, if not disproved, and that (according to some at Anglia) is a travesty. In fact, temperature has not gone up at all during the past two decades. It’s actually been cooling for the past 8 years. Both long and short-term information indicates that, if there is any relationship at all between temperature and carbon dioxide, it is the reverse of the warmist expectations; an increase in the atmosphere of CO2 comes many years after an earlier increase in the earth’s temperature.

    Unless you can produce evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was not a “natural variation”, you are wrong because many credible scientists, even lots of historians, feel otherwise. Of course, at least one of the Anglia “researchers” did attempt, a couple of different times, to eliminate that 400 year period from the world’s record via his “hockey stick” presentations, but that didn’t work out for him. Even the UN seems to have walked away from those graphs. Temperatures in the MWP were at least as high, and likely higher than today. Remnants of some of those 1000 year old vineyards have been found in areas further north than where grapes can (even now) be grown. Temperature estimates for that period have been confirmed by scientists using a variety of different techniques.

    Solar activity doesn’t ‘explain’ temperature change? There are more than a few scientists claiming that earth’s temperatures are influenced by solar activity; and they’ve put their credibility on the line – predicting cooler temperatures over the coming decade or two.

    In any case it’s a bit much to claim as “fact” that sun activity has no effect on earth’s temperature. Are you really prepared to claim that if the sun burns out tomorrow (or perhaps just cools a bit) there will be no effect on the earth’s temperature?

    The Antarctic temperature has actually been cooling over the past 1500 years. There has been no change in its temperature since 1958. Two recent studies summarized in a news article in Science magazine point to wind-induced circulation changes in the ocean as the dominant cause of the recent losses in mass, both the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

    Implying that every unusual change on earth is due to global warming (particularly when warming itself is in question) doesn’t qualify as evidence, let alone proof. The wind works in wondrous ways. The ice/snow loss on Kilimanjaro was, like everything else including gramdma’s arthritis, claimed to be due to global warming. But, alas, it turns out the culprit was the wind, which used to be moisture-laden, and now blows dry air across the mountain. The moisture loss was likely brought on by deforestation in the foothills over decades by man. The winds passes through the moist forest areas and then across the upper elevations of Kilimanjaro. Without the ongoing contribution of this moisture the equatorial sun is managing to slowly eliminate the snow pack; this in spite of the fact that temperatures at the high elevations on Kilimanjaro are always below freezing.

    It’s just recently been discovered that the Sahara goes through 20,000 year cycles, moving from sand dunes, to greenery and then to marshes and then back again. Even now the Sahara is evidently beginning to show slight greening. If we hadn’t discovered this cycle and the greening was more evident the chants of “global warming” would be ringing in our ears.

    There is a study published in the Journal of Climate showing that the temperature in Greenland from 1919 to 1932 was 1.33 times higher than the period from 1994 to 2007. Given that fact alone, it is difficult, probably impossible, to attribute any melting to global warming. (And I repeat, particularly when global warming itself is in question.) In fact, Greenland is gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and experiencing thinning ice at the lower elevations. (Also see the earlier response on Antarctic )

    Some warmists will argue that this two decade period of no warming is just a minor cycle, and not the big picture. It’s possible. However, skeptics can make that same claim about CO2 presence, global warming, or even their loss of hair. It might turn out true, but isn’t terribly helpful at this point.

    With regard to sea levels. At least some oceanographers claim they can’t detect any discernable rise in sea level. But other reports do claim an ongoing, but small annual increase. An increase seems more likely to me, given that sea levels have already risen hundreds of feet since our last ice age. Why should that stop now, before we’re even into the next ice age? Then there is some anecdotal evidence from island inhabitants, who swear that they’ve definitely noticed a rise in sea level. However, (as pointed out by an oceanographer) the actual cause may be that their land is sinking. Tectonic shifts are, unfortunately, still out there quietly doing their thing. There is apparently some evidence, for example, that the north end of the British Isles is experiencing a rise while the southern end is seeing a fall in sea level. (My recollection is such that I may have the north/south rise/fall backwards.)

    Apart from the fact that temperature in the stratosphere appears to be related to pressure distribution, I have no clue as to what, if anything, your claim is supposed to imply. More info please? Incidently, since it’s now evident that you’re willing to consider measurements other than land recordings reported by Anglia, why not accept the NOAA scientists claim that satellite readings of the earth’s temperature indicate no discernable increase over the past two decades?

    You’ve quoted global warming readings that seem to be in conflict with satellite data (and probably even with other reports that are based on the same land surface temperature recordings). Please answer, at least to yourself, the following question. Why do you suppose Anglia and Hadley would be so protective of their data and processes if these had been done honestly and competently? Doesn’t it strike you as obvious that, if that had been the case, these folks would have been force-feeding their documents to the skeptics?

    I would like to hear more about how climatologists derive global warming information from the numerous land station temperature recordings. How do they massage and unravel the data they obtain from these sites? We’ve all heard about the “homogenizing” of the raw data. It’s pretty clear that the devil is in these details. Even if done honestly and competently, those kinds of changes may have introduced enough noise to render the data useless. If satellite readings of earth’s temperature eliminate a lot of this sort of processing it will wins, hands down.

  145. Mac Lorry

    The Shifting Emissivity Of The Earth and Its Atmosphere

    Black body calculations result in a calculated surface temperature for Earth that’s lower than the measured value and that discrepancy is attributed to the greenhouse effect produced by gases like water vapor and CO2. That effect allowing visible sunlight to warm the surface while absorbing infrared from the surface and then reradiating some of that infrared back to the surface. The current IPCC findings are founded on the principle of CO2 radiative forcing with water vapor in a positive feedback role.

    The assuming that the discrepancy between the calculated and measured surface temperature of the Earth is due ONLY to the greenhouse effect is WRONG, and everything that flows from that fundamental error is likewise wrong.

    The Earth’s atmosphere is made up 99.94% by mass of gasses that are transparent to visible and infrared wavelengths of light. A medium that’s transparent to a particular wavelength of light can neither absorb nor radiate light at that wavelength. This effect is used in high-end solar collectors that employ gold plated tubes covered by a material that absorbs visible light but is transparent to infrared (a form of silicon). The result is a collector that’s more efficient at collecting heat energy from the sun because it’s unable to reradiate away heat as infrared.

    During the day sunlight passes through the atmosphere and heats the surface. Some of that heat is imparted into the atmosphere by conduction and convection. Just how much heat is absorbed by the atmosphere is demonstrated by experiments showing the reason the inside of a closed car gets so hot in the sun is because of blocked convection and has nothing to do with glass either absorbing or reflecting infrared. If not for convection moving heat from the surface and into the atmosphere the surface temperature during the day would be nearly the same as the inside of a closed car.

    At night the surface radiates some of its heat into space and cools. Some heat from the atmosphere is transferred back to the surface by conduction and wind, but convection stops because a thin layer of denser cold air forms on the surface and insulates the warmer air above it. Convection is a one-way conductor of heat into the atmosphere by day, and 99.94% by mass of that air cannot radiate heat away into space as infrared, and thus, the heat is trapped. As the cycle of day and night repeats the atmosphere becomes warmer relative to the surface and this reduces convection allowing the surface temperature to increase. Also, the warmer atmosphere transfers more heat to the ground at night by conduction and wind where that heat energy can be radiated into space as infrared. In this way the system is self-regulating.

    Add CO2 into this mix and you see this allows some of the heat trapped in the infrared transparent gasses to be transferred by conduction to CO2 and then radiated directly into space and toward the surface. Thus, CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. The increased temperature difference increases convection during the day which transfers more heat from the surface and into the atmosphere allowing the surface temperature to decrease. As the concentration of CO2 increases so too does the temperature difference between the atmosphere and the surface. That effect is particularly evident in the atmosphere’s upper layers where water vapor plays a diminishing role.

    Overall, CO2 likely has minimal effect on surface temperatures and that effect could be cooling rather than warming. We would know that by know if climatologists hadn’t blindly accepted the simplistic greenhouse effect as the only explanation for the discrepancy between the calculated and measured surface temperatures.

    So if CO2 doesn’t cause climate change than what does? See the link #146 for that answer. Once you do and once you think about the shifting emissivity of the Earth and its atmosphere you see that there’s now a complete explanation that matches real world observations.

    Sorry to all those who have built their careers on a false assumption about CO2, but your error is now threatening the economy and well being of us all and so it’s time for the truth. It’s not yet too late to get on the right side of science, but it soon will be.

  146. To: #148 Mac Lorry;

    Thanks for that reference in #146. You undersold it !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related

    This website presents six videos, probably a total of about one half hour of (not necessarily continual) watching. The spoken language will switch to English after a minute or two, so keep stay with it.

    The claim (and it’s pretty convincing) is that our climate at any point in (geologic) time appears to be closely related to the location of our solar system as it cycles through its 140 million year rotation about our milky way galaxy.

    What makes the story so interesting is that the science links our climate, a currently controversial subject, to our sun, to cosmic rays, and to our galaxy. It involves astronomy, geology, and oceanography. It all starts with an astronomer discovering a strong correlation between solar activity and climate, and later recognizing that it actually depends upon the interaction of sun and earth with cosmic rays.

    This theory of climate presents a much bigger picture, and at the same time a much simpler explanation than that now provided. As an aside the story is even more interesting because of how difficult it has been for these scientists to obtain any recognition. However, once they do, it will certainly turn into an inconvenient truth for those politicians now fixated on carbon.

  147. oops…. those cycles around the milky way are 250 million years !

  148. And, here’s another interesting site. It turns out that CO2 level has been higher than todays on at least three occasions in the 1800s. (That data in earlier presentations had been ‘smoothed’, thus eliminating actual (and useful) information.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343

  149. Con Michael

    Let’s stick to facts.The rigors of scientific discipline demand,inter alia,that a theory or hypothesis imply the kind of evidence that would prove it wrong.Predictions based on the theory are checked against the facts.If something occurs that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.The principal AGW alarmists themselves lament that they cannot explain the lack of warming.Ergo the AGW theory has been discredited.The widespread subzero conditions have been touted as evidence of global warming.Little wonder that the Emissions Trading Scheme was comprehensively rejected in the Australian Parliament

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

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

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

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 »