The Disastrous Setback for Climate Advocacy of Late 2009

By Chris Mooney | January 26, 2010 9:07 am

Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle has a really important article out about how, basically, the good guys lost a major battle in the climate war over the past few months. Some combination of the weather, ClimateGate, the relative failure of Copenhagen, and now, the decreasing likelihood of the U.S. Senate passing cap and trade have shifted a mood of climate optimism–which I certainly felt about a year ago–to one of deep despair. “The climate surrounding climate change has changed, and not for the better for those seeking to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” writes Berger. Sadly, I have to agree.

What went wrong? That’s a very long story, and Berger relates much of it. For my part, I am convinced the fundamental factor is that our camp egregiously misunderestimated the skeptic/denial camp and what it was capable of. Our thinking went something like this: “the science keeps getting stronger, and now we have Obama…the tide has turned.” And so we were lulled into a false sense of security. Now, there is a hell of a lot of regrouping to do, and I am not even sure where to begin. But one thing is certain: We should never again assume that science alone is going to make the political difference on this issue, no matter how strong it gets.

Comments (203)

  1. DavidS

    Dear Sir,

    I’m afraid you misread the situation. What has happened is that the bulk of the technically and scientifically literate population who have been busy running stuff and watching from the sidelines has now taken notice and realised that the climate change agenda has been run by a bunch of well-meaning amateurs. The data stewardship, sampling, statistical treatment, modelling and data presentation has been less than the industrial strength standards expected. I am optimistic that after a much-needed crew change we will get onto a better track with science in the driving seat not activists who got lucky. Warm regards from a very chilly London. DavidS

  2. Rmoen

    What went wrong? The population as a whole is beginning to realize the science behind man-made global warming is biased, unproven and sloppy. Whether one thinks man causes global warming or not, can we all agree that the United States needs to convene its own objective, transparent Climate Truth Commission and stop outsourcing our climate science to the United Nations? It defies common sense that we allow the UN to serve as both judge on whether CO2 is detrimental (IPCC) and advocate for limiting CO2 (Kyoto Protocol, Copenhagen).

    – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.comPeople started realizing

  3. I am convinced the fundamental factor is that our camp egregiously misunderestimated the skeptic/denial camp and what it was capable of.

    Did you really think that solving this problem had gotten easy simply because Obama was elected? Or that “Climategate” has had any real influence on the political debate involved? The last election simply gave scientists a seat at the table. Already at the table are wealthy monied interests who dominate economies around the world. The best way to change that dynamic is to work to create an alternative energy economy with which to counter the oil, coal and gas lobbies.

    We’ve never had the stronger hand and real change will take a lot of work.

  4. Katharine

    Sloppy? Hardly. Besides, how is the US the arbiter of truth? Nobody is, and those best equipped to find it are climatologists, who have proven that not only is global warming manmade, but that we are essentially past the tipping point and that the best we can do is adapt to the global changes.

    By the way, let us know when you’ve got any scientific organizations behind your back. Your supporters are only oil barons and deluded individuals who don’t properly defer to people who actually study it.

  5. Or to put it another way, the skeptic/denial camp is capable of spending billions of dollars to protect its bottom line.

    That goes a long way against scientific evidence, even with a Democratically run Congress.

  6. Busiturtle

    Thinking of bottom lines, which side of the debate is General Electric on?

  7. redlink18

    I will read Mr. Berger’s article, but in response to this post I’m inclined to agree with DavidS above. I do not consider myself a climate change denialist, but I’ve been blown away by the recent revelations regarding the 2007 IPCC report on climate change and the apparent dubiousness of the ideas that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and that climate change is definitively linked to extreme weather patterns and already causing the deaths of millions. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2010845740_apsciunclimatechange.html for the glaciers; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece for the extreme weather patterns)

    Do you consider these reports the work of people you (disparagingly, I guess) label “the skeptic/denial camp”? For a well-meaning citizen trying to make sense of the science, revelations like these seem pretty damaging. If the science is solid, it seems, then things like this shouldn’t happen, should they? I’m really asking.

  8. Bryan

    The good guys! Do some research on good guy Maurice Strong,
    the UN and The Club of Rome. Be thorough and get back to us.

  9. Somite

    The problem is that the deniers can and say anything that will resonate with the media regardless of scientific accuracy. This is not a problem with the scientists who are obligated to behave ethically and truthfully. The problem is the unethical behavior of deniers and the incompetent (or agenda driven) coverage by the media.

  10. Somite

    For the above people. Stop trying to make scientific arguments based on newspapers and magazine articles. Unless you are prepared to discuss a primary literature paper you’ve failed.

  11. Somite

    And here is a lucid assessment of himalayan glaciers by a glaciologist. The consensus in the field is:

    http://web.hwr.arizona.edu/~gleonard/2009Dec-FallAGU-Soot-PressConference-Backgrounder-Kargel.pdf

  12. Bill Kelly

    Gee Chris. I think maybe the bad strategy was the constant lying. Although all the spin doctoring is/was pretty annoying- oh – I almost forgot – the science. I know its a small point – you need to do the science right. Maybe you should read a bit about that. Oh – math – you need to do the math right too.

  13. Bryan

    Somite The CRU will not disclose the raw data. Your trust lies in
    the preordained models of this faith based science.

  14. Stop trying to make scientific arguments based on newspapers and magazine articles.

    Tell it to the IPCC.

  15. CW

    I think what went wrong was many things. But what gets lost in the shuffle was the “cap and trade” solution. As someone who believes that man-made global warming is most likely happening – I am very cynical about cap and trade.

    First of all, it’s vague. Second, it doesn’t say where fines/fees are specifically going (and I mean “specific”). Third, there’s been no substantive debate on other solutions (nuclear power, people come on! this is the 21st century, decades after Chernobyl). Fourth, why couldn’t we have used bail-out money to invest in curbing greenhouse gas emitting plants (i.e. tax credits, no-interest loans, etc.)? Fifth, what alternative energy plan are we going with – let’s pick one, two, or three and start investing in it? Why should companies look at wind power when five years from now the government subsidizes solar and hydro power?

    So yeah, man-made global warming may be real – but let’s get some direction and consensus from the government and scientists on where to go from here – other than taxes and restrictions.

  16. Somite

    Bryan: “Somite The CRU will not disclose the raw data. Your trust lies in
    the preordained models of this faith based science.”

    You mean like in here? http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

  17. Somite

    By the way. If you’ve also used the word “I” in your argument you’ve also failed.

  18. redlink18

    @Somite: Was I making a scientific argument based on “newspaper and magazine articles”? My point was that scientists themselves have called into question statements put forth by an authoritative body in an authoritative report. This makes it hard for an educated and well-meaning citizen to get a good grasp of what is at stake. It also harms the cause of those who want to change/slow down/stop global warming. I was making no claim to scientific expertise; I was showing what people who actually care about the subject might be reading. (Those links, by the way, were linked to by Andrew Revkin, former science writer at the NYT.)

    Nice of you to reply to a sincere expression of interest and desire for more information with a snarky comment about “discussing a primary literature paper you’ve failed.” That kind of disparagement is clearly the attitude climate change activists should have. What a jerk.

  19. I fully agree with redlink18…disparaging any comment that falls outside of the party line and concentrating on blaming a handful of well-paid individuals when there has been a clear and massive change in public opinion in the USA like in the UK, all of that will lead Mooney’s “camp” nowhere.

    On the other hand, given that the “warmists” have been scoring spectacular own goals for quite some time now, no wonder they show no chance of getting anything right at the moment.

  20. Dave

    “The good guys” are the ones causing feminine and disease in third world developing countries based on now well known fradulent data. The people who are fighting to stop their tyrnnical histeria, and help countries develop they are some how the bad guys? These “scientists” are rank amateurs who got thrust into an important position without any real idea on how to actually do science. Now they are rich, backed by far richer countries then any oil company could ever hope to be, and they have been shown to be money hungry liars. The debate is over, “the good guys” lost when the truth was exposed.

    The UN is a powerless, peopless country who has to use alarmism to make money. If they dont say the sky is falling no one would give them any funding. It is time to end the United Nations.

  21. Gary

    Misunderestimated….hehe…how ironic you used a Bushism to describe the weak argument that has come to light w.r.t. Mann made global warming.

  22. Jessica

    As soon as you mention “Camp” and “Good guys” you lose the argument.

    There are no good guys, bad guys, no camps to stake a position in, only scientific fact, that’s why the theory of AGW has collapsed.

  23. Eric Berger has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he is a twit, incapable of dispassionate scientific anlysis, and instead self-focused on his feelings. Those feelings would have the world revert back to primative man, disease, and malnutrition.

    What he should do, if he wants to stop all the CO2 plant food from getting into the atmosphere, is show his committment to his “cause”: get off the grid, stop driving his luxury car, and never use a telephone again. When he does that, he will then have sufficient credibility to write another screed.

    Until then, he should crawl back under the rock with Pachuri.

  24. So let me get this straight – scientists get caught exercising some rather skeptical judgment and pursuing some borderline shady scientific practices…. and it’s the fault of the skeptics? What the hell planet are you on when you write that?

    Climate advocates will not get the results they want until they actually grow up and accept blame for their own mistakes, and pursue science honestly instead of trying to sensationalize every issue. Don’t blame skeptics for your own failings.

  25. Gunder

    Somite #17: Bryon is right, the only reference to raw data is this statement.

    ‘Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data. ‘

  26. The Engineer

    Meanwhile in the REAL world:
    - Most people are experiencing their worst winter in 30 years.
    - No temperature rises for over 10 years.
    -

  27. The Engineer

    - No Sea-level rises
    - More ice worldwide than ever recorded
    - The science in the IPCC report isn’t really that strong.

  28. I was also amused by the verb “misunderestimate” that Mr Mooney borrowed from George W. Bush. The main thing that Mr Mooney has learned from all the scandals showing a complete failure of his favorite institutions to do things right, in the honest scientific way, is that the “good” guys should “regroup”, although he’s not sure about the right new arrangement of this “regrouping”.

    Too bad for the “good” guys in Germany and Japan that they didn’t have a strategic genius of Mooney’s caliber to tell them how to regroup in Berlin, May 1945, or Hiroshima, August 1945. Such an ingenious regrouping would have surely helped them. By the way, those guys were feeling “secure” and “good” in 1940, too. Many of them had to be shot so that they were no longer feeling as “good guys”.

    I still don’t know whether e.g. Mooney himself has ever believed the AGW pseudoscience or whether it was always just a tool for his own self-promotion but I don’t believe for a second that Mooney has ever thought that the AGW alarmist camp contained better scientists than the proper scientific camp. This is such an absurd proposition that I simply won’t buy it. His feelings of security were always caused by the distorted political institutionalization of climate science, by things like Obama in a wrong house, by the atmosphere of intimidation that they were controlling for years.

    But I am certain that they always had to know that what they were doing was not right, and they had to expect that many of them would ultimately be arrested.

  29. JohnAnnArbor

    You want peer-reviewed? We got peer-reviewed:
    “Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change” in Physics Reports.

    The author’s university released a press release on it. If Prof. Lu is right, and CFCs and cosmic rays have more effect on global temperature than CO2, then we’re all set. He has the advantage that his modeling actually predicts what has been observed to happen (the lack of warming since 2000), which all of the warmists’ models missed completely.

  30. InMD

    Ladies and gentlemen, the global warming charade is over. The ruse is exposed. An now those in your “camp”, are the new deniers.

    The writer says “We should never again assume that science alone is going to make the political difference on this issue, no matter how strong it gets”. He has it backwards, it was always 90% politics, and 10% dubious science.

    Each of the AGW arguments are being falsified by the day.

    You were tricked into a belief by groups that were ready, willing and able to capitalize on your naiveté.

    Now your lack of intelectual curiosity is preventing you from seeing the facts for what they are.

    The new reality is going to be like learning there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny but you will get over it eventually.

    InMD

  31. As DavidS said , its failing because a lot of us who are your numerate fellow citizens see propaganda not science being used in a Pinky and the Brain scheme to take over the world . Having lived long enough to have seen the devastation of 20th century marxism , we have been scared into battling this massively funded eco-leninist stupidity . The level of understanding of the physics of planetary temperature is pathetic on both sides of the debate and has been significantly retarded by this lysenkoism . Many once esteemed institutions and publications have permanently tarnished their reputations , as has Discovery , by subjugating their scientific impartiality , and even common sense , to an anti-prosperity , anti-freedom hysteria . Mooney is typical of those being paid as science pundits who apparently don’t have even an undergraduate degree in physics or engineering . No wonder they are susceptible to the barf they brainlessly regurgitate . Glaciers at over 6000m melting in 25 years ? You’ve got to be brain dead .

    Here’s a graphic showing the real effect of the gas which is half the respiratory cycle of life on this planet : http://cosy.com/Science/CO2-pineGrowth100120half.jpg .

  32. Each of the AGW arguments are being falsified by the day.

    Each? Why don’t you give us an example of any argument that’s been falsified.

  33. Ed Moran

    Somite,

    so-called scientists are lying, cherry-picking, moving temp stations, taking about destroying data to avoid legitimate FOI queries (in addition to the data lost – eaten by the dog?) losing the MWP, hi-jacking the peer review and colluding to force people out of their jobs.

    Now they admit putting falsehoods into IPPC reports to force the US government to act.

    If people like me are angry it’s because we damn well should be.

  34. Dave McK

    Nothing you can do, even apologizing and correcting, can save the magazine.
    MSM has totally shat the nest and information consumers have found how to get what they want faster, from the source and for free.
    Dr. Las admits the myth of the vanishing Himalayan glaciers was included despite its falsity in order to have an impact – in other words politics, not science.
    The IPCC is a political body not a scientific one.
    A model is something to hide in the closet when you let the air out, not worship like it was Carl Sagan preaching nuclear winter.
    More WWF easter eggs cited in the AR4 to be examined yet. Next is the Amazon.
    This after 500,000 sq miles of glaciers reported (there are only 33,000) and somehow they got 5 billion people living in the region – all in one paragraph – because it sounded ScArY- and that’s worth trillions. Never give a sucker an even break.
    Oh- I don’t buy your magazine any more and plan on more of it for a long time.

  35. Pinky and the Brain…marxism…eco-leninist…lysenkoism…anti-prosperity…anti-freedom…barf…

    Are these supposed to be the elements of a convincing counter-argument?

  36. Somite you gave this link for raw data:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/

    but failed to mention the fine print here:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/

    which says:

    “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    Epic fail.

  37. Jon

    Wow, these trolls sure have a lot of time on their hands. Let me guess, a link from Morano?

    Chris, don’t confuse the senate’s intransigence w/r/t health care with the approach they’ll take to climate change and energy. I might be wrong, but I would think Snowe and Collins would have an interest in boosting Maine offshore wind and tidal hydro. Things won’t cut as neatly down party lines, as the political pressures will be much more regional. No doubt there was some momentum lost from political noise and PR over the past year, but who said it was easy to turn the ship of state and a large economy?

  38. Garry

    @Jinchi @InMD “Why don’t you give us an example of any argument that’s been falsified.”

    Just for starters:

    1) IPCC statement that Himalayan glaciers will disappear is false and has been retracted.
    2) Mann “hockey stick” used by IPCC has repeatedly been proven false.
    3) Profuse citation by IPCC of non-scientific propaganda from World Wildlife Fund that is neither peer-reviewed nor rigorous nor even science.
    4) Recent charges by Russian climatologists of CRU cherry-picking the instrument record.
    5) Growing photographic evidence that NOAA instruments are badly sited and produce questionable if not bogus temperature data.

    More? Easy but boring.

    Denial is a river.

  39. Dear Jinchi #33 and #34,

    Bob Armstrong’s comment made complete sense. Of course that if you only choose every 15th word he wrote, his text becomes slightly less coherent and fluent than Bob Armstrong’s original full, crisp, and robust comment about Mooney’s lack of technical education and his being a political hired gun, but even the truncated comment by Bob Armstrong makes much more sense than any comment you have written in your life so far.

    Concerning AGW arguments that have been falsified – did you write that you need examples? Welcome to the Milky Way. The IPCC 2007 statement that the largest non-polar glaciers will “highly likely” melt by 2035 if not sooner was retracted and regretted, see

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

    That’s an official IPCC statement but feel free to say that the authors of the text above are fringe denialists – you will be right, after all.

    There was no science behind the statement and obvious order-of-magnitude calculations make it clear that it is virtually impossible for the glaciers to melt faster than in 3-5 centuries. Everyone knows that by now. There exists absolutely no threat to the glaciers in any foreseeable future.

    Similarly unsupported by any science was the IPCC statement that “40 percent of” Amazonia was being destroyed by climate change,

    http://news.google.com/news?q=amazongate

    That’s known as the AmazonGate. There is also DisasterGate, which incorrectly linked disasters and extreme weather events to global warming (even though the paper they relied upon, when published – after the IPCC – actually said that there was no evidence of such a link), and four thousand documents full of far-reaching conclusions of the same kind that resulted from ClimateGate.

    Do you really need to be reminded of these things? Do you really deny that this pseudoscientific castle built on sand is just collapsing? What people have been hearing from the IPCC types for years were mostly lies and there’s no way left now to hide this fact.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  40. GM

    Some combination of the weather, ClimateGate, the relative failure of Copenhagen, and now, the decreasing likelihood of the U.S. Senate passing cap and trade have shifted a mood of climate optimism–which I certainly felt about a year ago–to one of deep despair.

    So you thought that cap and trade will do the job?? Wow…

    And so much for how what you like to call “the deficit model” fails to describe the situation well – all of this is a result of the deadly combination of the following:

    1. the inability of the public to understand how science works and the basic principles of the scientific method
    2. the complete lack of respect for science and scientific reasoning and the rampant anti-intellectualism so characteristic of modern society (those polls show 80+ percent support for science but they fail to make sure that the people actually know what science is)
    3. the arrogant anthropocentric approach to the world that even the scientists who should know better very rarely fight (if there is a place where you would have a point that scientists do a poor job of communication, this is it, but you never went there unfortunately)

    To most of the comments above – seriously, do you realize that the measures that has to be taken against global warming are the same measures that have to be taken to tackle the peak oil and the energy crisis, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, ocean acidification, top soil loss and the looming water crisis, and every other aspect of our relationship with the environment where we fail to understand that we live in a finite world with limited carrying capacity. You may deny global warming, mostly because you don’t like the inescapable conclusion that doing something about means end of growth (both of the economy and the population) and not just that but shrinking, because we’re in overshoot already, but in order to not do what has to be done you have to deny everything else I listed, and some of those things are so axiomatic that you must be absolutely insane to ignore them….

  41. GM

    Concerning AGW arguments that have been falsified – did you write that you need examples? Welcome to the Milky Way. The IPCC 2007 statement that the largest non-polar glaciers will “highly likely” melt by 2035 if not sooner was retracted and regretted, see

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

    Seriously? The glaciers have been melting – this is a fact, if you extrapolate any melting trend sufficiently far into the the future, you end up with no ice. That’s kind of obvious. They made a mistake with the date – it may not be as soon as 2035, but does it really matter and does this reject the basic fact that if the glaciers keep melting, they will eventually melt completely? And does it reject anything that has been known for nearly a century about the effect of greeenhouses gases??

    I am just waiting for someone to come out and say that Svante Arrhenius was also a part of the conspiracy…

  42. If one looks at what is purported to be “science” behind anthropogenic global warming(AGW), one has to be braindead not to be a skeptic. If there was any credible science, the scientists would be willing to debate it in public. The leading spokesman, Al Gore, refuses to debate. He has had a reporter who asked hard questions forcibly removed by security and has refused to allow Lord Monkton to testify alongside him in congress. The evidence expressed in the IPCC report is in itself a logical fallacy. The claim of evidence is the fact that computer models that use natural factors alone cannot explain the 0.6 C observed warming, therefore it must be caused by mankind. This is the fallacious argument from ignorance. There are many problems with the calculated 0.6 C warming, including quality of surface stations (www.surfacestations.org), the 75% reduction in stations in the 1990′s just before the rapid rise in temp, the location of stations worldwide and the revelation in the CRU emails that they would destroy raw data rather than give it up under FOI requests. Assuming, in spite of all of the questions mentioned above, the 0.6 C warming is accurate, the climate models are simply not accurate enough to distinguish between natural and other causes to this degree. To top all of this off, the climategate emails give evidence that the scientists involved, editors of prominent journals and news reports have all been complicit in subverting the peer review process and prevent or delay publication of skeptic’s research. In all of the arguments by the warmists above, the word “science” was mentioned many times. No one even made an effort to explain what the “science” was. Instead, they resorted to insults, such as, “Your supporters are only oil barons and deluded individuals who don’t properly defer to people who actually study it” and “The problem is that the deniers can and say anything that will resonate with the media regardless of scientific accuracy. This is not a problem with the scientists who are obligated to behave ethically and truthfully.”

  43. bilbo

    The progression of climate skeptic argument:

    1.) Make a bold, absolutist proclamation about climate change being false (“The ruse has been exposed!!!”)

    2.) When challenged to explain why, link to a skeptic blog or random new article.

    3.) When asked to show which paper(s) that supposedly debunks and how, rant about the CRU “not releasing data”).

    4.) When someone links to the websites where climate data are easily and freely downloaded in full, just proclaim that “you warmists just don’t get it!” and leave the thread.

    Epic fail.

  44. SteveCase

    Lobos wrote:

    “What people have been hearing from the IPCC types for years were mostly lies and there’s no way left now to hide this fact.”

    The biggest lie is that Global Warming would be a disaster. It would not. A warmer world by most measures would be a better world.

    “What shall we do about Global Warming?” has been a loaded question from the beginning.

  45. Jack

    Jinchi,
    1) Man-induced CO2 can not and will not be the driver of climate change because CO2 is a relatively weak, insignificant greenhouse gas.
    2) CO2 lags temperature
    3) Thermal runaway is not true; if it were, earth would have been burned up long time ago when CO2 level was 10-20 times higher than today.
    4) Earth temperature has been at a plateau levle since or has a slight decline for over a decade now.
    5) Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
    6) There’s no empirical evidence that man-induced CO2 is the driver of climate change (it can’t, see 1).

    7) AGW is totally falsified.

    It’s truth that kills AGW! Learn to accept it.

  46. Dear GM,

    your statement that the glaciers “have been melting” – without providing any timeline – is both vague (ill-defined) and different from the ambitious statement in the IPCC report. But even your modest statement is mostly untrue.

    Some glaciers in the Himalayas were recently shrinking, others were advancing. The latter group includes 230 glaciers in the Western Himalayas, see

    http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html

    If you want not 1 but 12 groups of glaciers that haven’t heard the news about the global warming yet and are advancing, here’s a list:

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming

    Your extrapolation to the future is meaningless. Such an extrapolation is simply not a scientifically solid prediction. No trend of glaciers remains uniform for several centuries. Moreover, even if such extrapolations could be done, the result would be completely irrelevant and vacuous because *everything* could be extrapolated to end up with a catastrophe at *some* point in the future. Russia has a shrinking population, extrapolate it linearly, you get zero. And so on, and so on.

    What’s important is that there is no rational justification based on these sloppy extrapolation to change our behavior today, in 2010. There is no urgent problem because one can’t predict any problem in any foreseeable future. The Sun will run out of thermonuclear fuel in a few billion years, too. And what? Things will be different in a very far future. But such a future has nothing to do with our decisions we make today, tomorrow, or 2015.

    Notice that only people like you talk about “conspiracies”. Sensible people never believed any big permanent conspiracy that could hide the truth forever, or for decades, and indeed, nothing like that is possible, as we are just seeing. As we say in Czech, the lies have short legs. Get used to it. Your movement’s fifteen minutes of fame is over and you’re doomed.

    Believe me that I understand the greenhouse effect: I have taught physics at Harvard University. But so do I understand thousands of other phenomena that are relevant in the climate or elsewhere. The idea that the greenhouse effect is something that should be interesting to non-scientists – or even politicians and ordinary people – is preposterous. The influence of CO2 on the temperatures is just one among billions of phenomena that are constantly changing the shape of the Universe, and it is one of the phenomena that are only interesting to the narrowest group of specialists as long as people behave rationally.

    Best regards
    Lubos

  47. Garry

    @Jon “I would think Snowe and Collins would have an interest in boosting Maine offshore wind and tidal hydro.”

    Why would you think that? It’s a total non sequiter. Why would they “have an interest” in wind and hydro, which are unsuitable for driving any kind of economic growth except to those in the wind and hydro businesses?

  48. Spenc Canada

    Aw poor little Baby. Did some one take your soother from you. Suck it up losers!

  49. random internet guy

    What went wrong was that the IPCC made false statements that it should have known were false. It has sadly managed to shoot itself in the foot and if we don’t get a deal in Mexico it will be the fault of the IPCC

    Pachauri must go soon so we can rebuild credibility with an increasingly sceptical public.
    .

  50. Spenc Canada

    You said “misunderestimated”. The last person who used this construction, which is not a legit word, was Bush. Sure you want to be in that company?

  51. Spenc Canada

    You said “misunderestimated”. The last person who used this construction, which is not a legit word, was Bush. Sure you want to be in that kind of company?

  52. Spenc Canada

    What the matter cant take a bit of literary criticism?

  53. Busiturtle

    How is the building of wind and tidal plants in Maine any different than a proposal to dam the Colorado river in the middle of the Grand Canyon?

    While we’re at it lets put some geothermal plants in Yellowstone.

  54. “…the good guys lost a major battle in the climate war over the past few months…”

    Couching the sides of the debate in moral terms is not merely unfair, but is also unproductive. It is unfair in the sense that not even the most fervent skeptic wants to leave a degraded environment for their children, they just don’t believe that CO2 will degrade it. It is unproductive in the sense that using such moral terms feeds the perception that values are being substituted for facts.

    After all, the “good guys” are only good if you presume that they are correct on the issue. What the revelations of the past few months indicate is that we can not automatically make that presumption.

  55. Garry

    @bilbo “Epic fail.”

    Hide the decline.
    Voodoo science.
    Several million degrees core.
    High crimes against humanity.
    Hide this after Jim checks it.

  56. Steve

    @Jinchi 33 – As plaintiff in the case to convict mankind of warming the planet, the burden of proof rests with alarmists. So, please, present the data showing that 1970 – 2000 warming was different than all preceeding warming periods, that 1970 – 2000 sea level rise accelerated, that 1970 – 2000 global sea ice extent decreased, that 1970 – 2000 global cyclone activity was stronger and more frequent, or (even) that 1970 – 2000 global polar bear populations are decreasing. Hint, you can’t, but please do try.

    @GM 37 – The fact that glaciers are melting does not define the cause. The fact that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations produce a temperature increase under isolated conditions says nothing about what happens when they are introduced into a complex climate system. If, however, you have a model that implicates CO2 as the cause of the planets woes, please do submit it for review.

    I have little doubt that, after failing to produce any data that definitively and unarguably links CO2 to catastrophic warming, you will fall back to worn and tattered position of argument to authority and ad hom attack.

  57. Somite-”This is not a problem with the scientists who are obligated to behave ethically and truthfully.”
    You make the error of presuming that they are acting in accordance with their obligation and not their “bottom line”

  58. Interglacial John

    Here is what went wrong. Greedy scientists, greedy governments and worshippers of Gaia created a myth called “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Then smart people came along and said this is crap. Even smarter scientists then actually reviewed the “evidence” of man made global warming and found it lacking. Then the world received a gift in the form of hacked email messages that pulled back the curtain and everyone who cared to look saw the fraud for what it is. Alarmists were suddenly the deniers and everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

  59. If there was any credible science, the scientists would be willing to debate it in public.

    Maybe you should try looking at Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, the Journal of Geophysical Research, the Journal of Climatology, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or see the list of abstracts from AGU, EGU etc. or you could simply start with the IPCC report.

    The idea that this science is being conducted in secret is absurd.

    And BTW, neither Al Gore nor Lord Monkton are scientists, so I don’t know what a debate between the two of them is supposed to resolve.

  60. Jack

    Jinchi,

    The core of AGW had been debunked; it’s dead. You have absolutely nothing but predictions and assumptions based on a debunked theory to hold onto.

    What part of AGW is not debunked? Let us know so that we can clarify it for you.

    Or point out any article from those scientific journals you mentioned and will debunk for you.

    It’s really simple, Jinchi, to end the so-called debate, just provide proof that man-induced CO2 is the driver of climate change (the core of AGW theory).

    If you can’t, then AGW is absolutely falsified.

  61. Nuke A Whale

    When I read the comment about the “good guys”, I thought I was reading satire. You want to save the world, so that makes you a good guy? So everyone who disagrees with your agenda — for any reason, is a “bad guy?”

    Some of the worst things in the world were done by people who thought they were doing the right thing. Every genocide ever carried out was done by people who thought they were. So let’s leave out motivation when we are discussing science, if you please.

    And speaking of science, where is the evidence that the warming experienced in the last-half of the 20th century was outside natural variation? Computer models are not evidence as computer models do not output facts.

    Science is not activism.

  62. Rod E.

    Whoever said we got here via a Morano link was correct. Nonetheless, it’s interesting to read the arguments of those who have obviously not kept up with the amazing revelations that began with the release of the CRU emails and have continued ever since.

    Global warming adherents have only one fact on their side; carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased steadily for decades and mankind’s burning of fossil fuels has undoubtedly contributed to that increase. Everything after that is sheer speculation, complete bunk or demonstrably wrong. This especially includes the “science” that dictates that the increase in CO2 is causing the earth to warm, which has been sheer speculation buttressed by shabby computer models. Even though the actual temperatures conflict with the model projections, not just in degree, but in direction (!!), the AGW adherents continue to support the models and trust their outputs.

    I suppose you could also add the “fact” that the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, but climate change will always be with us. The warming crowd has taken it so far as to even attempt to “disappear” the Medieval Warm Period a la Mann’s “hockey stick.”

    In less than 10 years the AGW episode will be seen as a scam far larger than Madoff’s, both in the amount of dollars sucked out of pockets to support it, and in the number of people who bought into it.

    As for the “science” not being sufficient to win the day, the science is indeed winning the day now that real scientists are becoming willing to tear down the facade built by Gore, Hanson, Mann et al.

  63. As plaintiff in the case to convict mankind of warming the planet,…

    Steve, this isn’t a court case, we’re talking science. Carbon Dioxide is a known greenhouse gas and burning gas, oil and coal for fuel and cutting down forests to clear land for agriculture adds significantly to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much we’re adding to the system and we can often identify specific sources using isotope analysis.

    So as a skeptic, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what factors are compensating for a known driving force.

    Hint, you can’t, but please do try.

  64. GM

    What part of AGW is not debunked? Let us know so that we can clarify it for you.

    The IPCC report is quite long and contains the results of decades of research on many many aspects of AGW. There has been 2 scandals lately – one where e-mails leaked but absolutely no science was discredited based on those, and one where a prediction for complete melt of Himalayan glaciers was placed too soon in the future. At best, those debunk the statement that Himalyan glaciers will melt by 2035. It’s not even debunked that those glaciers will melt, let alone the rest of AGW.

  65. Dana H.

    It has been a very good couple of months for those of us who hoped that the shoddy scientific practices of the AGW alarmists would someday be exposed more widely. And now that the floodgates are open, bogus claims are being debunked on an almost daily basis (GlacierGate, AmazonGate, …) — more than I, even as a skeptic, ever suspected. I have rarely been happier and prouder to be a real scientist.

    I know it takes time, even for an honest person, to realize that much of what you once believed is totally wrong. But anyone who by the end of this year still believes in catastrophic AGW might as well go join the creationists and flat earthers. It will be clear to the rest of us that you are driven by faith rather than by evidence and reason.

  66. In less than 10 years the AGW episode will be seen as a scam

    I’ve been hearing that line for 20 years now, but the world keeps getting hotter.

  67. Passerby

    Pachauri needs to go. At a recent conference he made the extraordinarily naive claim that “citizens all over the world are going to vote their governments out within a decade if they don’t support drastic climate change legislation”. But this same ‘scientist’ who is so confident about climate change, when asked about concrete technologies that could mitigate the problem, fumbled and mumbled. And this is apparently the IPCC head.

  68. GM

    Dear GM,
    your statement that the glaciers “have been melting” – without providing any timeline – is both vague (ill-defined) and different from the ambitious statement in the IPCC report. But even your modest statement is mostly untrue.
    Some glaciers in the Himalayas were recently shrinking, others were advancing. The latter group includes 230 glaciers in the Western Himalayas, see
    http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html
    If you want not 1 but 12 groups of glaciers that haven’t heard the news about the global warming yet and are advancing, here’s a list:
    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming

    These aren’t peer-reviewed articles so why should I believe them? That was IPCCs problem too in this case, BTW.

    Your extrapolation to the future is meaningless. Such an extrapolation is simply not a scientifically solid prediction. No trend of glaciers remains uniform for several centuries. Moreover, even if such extrapolations could be done, the result would be completely irrelevant and vacuous because *everything* could be extrapolated to end up with a catastrophe at *some* point in the future. Russia has a shrinking population, extrapolate it linearly, you get zero. And so on, and so on.

    I am not familiar with the exact rates of melting, and apparently hard data on this is difficult to obtain, which is why IPCC messed up, but I didn’t mean centuries. I agree that you can’t extrapolate such trends over centuries on their own, but no one is doing that,the extrapolation is done in the context of the global warming trend and all the evidence that supports it, and this changes things.

    What’s important is that there is no rational justification based on these sloppy extrapolation to change our behavior today, in 2010. There is no urgent problem because one can’t predict any problem in any foreseeable future. The Sun will run out of thermonuclear fuel in a few billion years, too. And what? Things will be different in a very far future. But such a future has nothing to do with our decisions we make today, tomorrow, or 2015.
    Notice that only people like you talk about “conspiracies”. Sensible people never believed any big permanent conspiracy that could hide the truth forever, or for decades, and indeed, nothing like that is possible, as we are just seeing. As we say in Czech, the lies have short legs. Get used to it. Your movement’s fifteen minutes of fame is over and you’re doomed.

    That means that you would never be able to do anything about problems where there is a long delay between their causes and the time when something can be done about them on one side, and their effects on the other. Which characterizes both AGW and Peak Oil. That’s a very shortsighted view with disastrous consequences for decision making. Of course, steep discount rates are a defining cognitive characteristic of humans (and not just human) so it’s not surprising, but highly educated people are supposed to know better than that

    Believe me that I understand the greenhouse effect: I have taught physics at Harvard University. But so do I understand thousands of other phenomena that are relevant in the climate or elsewhere. The idea that the greenhouse effect is something that should be interesting to non-scientists – or even politicians and ordinary people – is preposterous. The influence of CO2 on the temperatures is just one among billions of phenomena that are constantly changing the shape of the Universe, and it is one of the phenomena that are only interesting to the narrowest group of specialists as long as people behave rationally.
    Best regards
    Lubos

    I know very well where you have taught, I have been around both the internet and the Cambridge area. What I don’t know is why you ignored my other comment where I mentioned all the other aspects of our ecological overshoot. Does this means that you are denying all of those too? As a physicist you are certainly able to at least understand the energy crisis we’re facing, which implies exactly the same set of measures as AGW

  69. blackcoffee

    Somite:

    1) When trying to determine why there are perceived problems with the idea of anthropogenic climate change, the word “I” is quite appropriate. Try listening to what many of the genuinely confused masses has to say and it could go a long way toward understanding why there is a publicity problem.

    2) The CRU data that is available is not the /raw/ data that Bryan is referring to; it is the “homogenized” data that has been run through various filters and validation processes that have not been made transparent. Much of the legitimate concern from skeptics comes from the unwillingness of the CRU to release the raw data and release their techniques for filtering it.

  70. moptop

    “There has been 2 scandals lately ”

    This is the kind of thing that happens to people who wear ideological blinders

    There is the minor “Hide this until Jim checks it” email from NASA
    http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/23/nasa-hide-this-after-jim-checks-it/

    You shouldn’t gloss over the Glacier thing to lightly either. From one of the IPCC principles:

    Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
    In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dkUxQWnL

    Oh yeah, and the guy who heads the IPCC stood to profit from the misstatements in AR4, and guess what, one of his employees in the company that stood to profit, and by the way, did profit, put it in there. I am not going to put a link in here because I am hoping you will call BS and show how deeply ignorant you guys really are.

    Don’t forget AmazonGate
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html

    It seems like the AR4 contained a lot of claims purported to be peer reviewed science, but which were actually the “findings” of environmental advocates delivered through the WWF. Search AR4 for WWF if you are interested in seeing the other shoes that will likely drop.

    And yes, this is getting into the press.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023598/after-climategate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

    There might be more, I don’t know. I gave up on the IPCC a long time ago, you know, the IPCC, whose AR4 lead editor was shown to be a bad actor in the climategate emails?

    Climategate has just reached the end of the beginning people, and you may not know it, but governments do now.

  71. Jack

    Jinchi,

    For argument sake, and let say you’re right about “the world keeps getting hotter” despite the global cooling for the last 8 or so years, still doesn’t mean man-induced CO2 is the cause of that warm, there’s no scientific proof whatsoever, Jinchi. And please, don’t bring it glaciers, polar bears, etc. — if you do, you’re just skirting around the issue.

    Again, you only have assumptions, predictions and forecasts based on an unproven theory.

    We gave you reasons why AGW is debunked but you and the rest of the global warming extremists continue to refuse to accept the truth. It’s a “travesty”.

    The reason AGW is declared a scam because you are presented with the truth but you refuse to accept it and continue to promote it.

  72. Adeist

    “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course).”

    Questions:
    Why is he trying to dismiss it if it appears to be correct?
    Why is publishing an apparently correct paper that improves the state of knowledge by revealing errors considered “damage”?
    Why is the data for the original paper not in the public domain, so that it can be replicated, rather than having to be provided by this back channel?
    Why is the data not appropriately documented, with column headings?
    Why does he say that the paper doesn’t show their method is better, and then go on to say “So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things” directly contradicting himself?
    How can you determine if the method works by applying it to real data in which you don’t know the ‘ground truth’ to compare it against?

    “If there was any credible science, the scientists would be willing to debate it in public.”

    That would mean that papers showing their methods to be wrong would get published, and then debated. Not kept out of print at any cost because of the “damage” they would do. Damage to *what*, exactly? ‘Science’?

    If sceptical papers cannot get published simply because they are sceptical, then their absence from the pages of the consensus-controlled journals *cannot* constitute evidence that there is no credible science. This wrecks not only the credibility of the journals, but sabotages the scientific method at its root. Confidence in science is based on meeting the challenge of one’s best attempts to *disprove* a hypothesis, not to prove it.

  73. Dimsdale

    When they explain how sea levels were 15-18 FEET above present levels during the last interglacial (we are in the declining years of the present interglacial), which occurred about 120K years ago, then they can start explaining the anthropogenic panic they are trying to start with their dire predictions of a several centimeter sea level rise with their current hypotheses. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/)

  74. Dear Jinchi #61,
    you tell us to look at Nature etc. Fine.

    So I actually think it is legal for me to predict that in less than 24 hours from now, there will be a new paper in Nature that will say that the CO2 climate feedback is less than 1/5 of the IPCC value – less than 8 units (mean value, from the interval between 2 and 21) instead of the IPCC’s 40 units. The units, in the normalization of the paper, are ppmv per degree Centigrade. The IPCC value will be excluded at the 95 percent confidence level.

    If true, that could settle it for Nature as a journal, right?

    Do you wanna make a bet that my prediction is correct? What about betting your life on it if you trust that the journal science is so settled?

    I recommend you not to look for support for your favorite myths in the actual science because there isn’t any support over there – and the published science will be speaking against the untrue statements simply because the AGW dam has broken and it is no longer a taboo to print obviously correct (i.e. non-hysterical) conclusions of scientific research – which (un)fortunately doesn’t support any AGW worries at all. Your real support lies with extreme far-left political activists like Mooney who write books whose main purpose is to attack the GOP, and science was just temporarily picked as a convenient prostitute – for as much time as it couldn’t defend itself against the raping.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  75. moptop

    “Peak Oil”

    Let’s see, Venezuela may have more oil than Saudi Arabia, we find out in recent weeks. Brazil has a huge find, and by huge, I mean HUGE. There are megabarrels of oil in the Arctic. Giant natural gas deposits have become technologically feasible in the good ol’ U S of A over the past year. So your peak oil thing isn’t looking very good in the near term. In the long term prices and technology will deal with it just fine. As people are fond of saying, the stone age didn’t end when we ran out of stones.

    Sorry for basically repeating Lubos’s post; I hadn’t read it. But yeesh! You guys haven’t really a clue.

  76. David Harrington

    Gosh the truth has such an annoying tendency to pop its “inconvenient” head over the parapet eventually.

  77. moptop

    So I actually think it is legal for me to predict that in less than 24 hours from now, there will be a new paper in Nature that will say that the CO2 climate feedback is less than 1/5 of the IPCC value – less than 8 units (mean value, from the interval between 2 and 21) instead of the IPCC’s 40 units.

    – Lubos Motl

    Holy Crap! The people here wont understand what your post means, but wow! Sounds like we have a Near Earth Object on an impact course for AGW.

  78. Rod E.

    68. Jinchi Says:

    “I’ve been hearing that line for 20 years now, but the world keeps getting hotter.”

    The computer-modeled world was supposed to keep getting hotter all right, but something happened around 1998 and it started getting colder instead. Classic case of cognitive dissonance.

    The real knockdown is coming shortly as the realization dawns that the databases under NASA’s control have been fudged just as badly as the CRU databases. The severe culling of cooler temperature stations in the data record resulting in an overstatement of 20th century warming will be the next dam to break. Even the MSM won’t find it easy to ignore that revelation, though they’ll certainly try.

    What you’ve been witnessing since Climategate broke is reasonable people weighing evidence and reconsidering past positions. Among those reasonable people are reporters and editors who are slowly realizing that they might have been conned big time. When they turn on AGW, and eventually they will, it won’t be pretty.

  79. tom servo

    Since Cap and Trade is now dead (and oh yes, it is VERY dead!) then this is now just all internet wanking. We’ve managed to kill the threat of any government action – even Boxer has said that it may be “10 years” before any kind of regulation is implemented. Well, since we’re supposedly at a global “tipping point” we’ve managed to run out the warming clock, haven’t we? Nobody in the world is going to cut back meaningfully on CO2 emissions, so now we’re going to get to watch and see if it results in the terrible things predicted or if it’s just absorbed by the oceans and turned into more coral reefs.

    That’s what makes the anguish of the AGW cultists so much fun to watch – if they truly believe, they must believe that it’s already too late to save the earth. But if they don’t believe that, then they don’t really believe, do they???

    Oh well, false religions can find endless ways to keep on explaining their beliefs when their predictions don’t work out.

  80. Brian Crater

    Bolivia has a GDP worth over $16 billion, and they can’t afford a thermometer? Point being, NOAA, GISS and the CRU fill in the global dataset for this high mountainous (cold) country with thermometers 100 miles away at the beach!

    The data is fraudulent. The slight natural warming has been grossly magnified, while historic data is ‘adjusted’ downward to produce a well intentioned, but none-the-less a total fraud.

    CO2 is a harmless trace gas which flora devour, and without which, we all die. Changes in CO2 are irrelavent in earths’ climate. We don’t matter.

  81. Interglacial John

    I guess GM has not heard about the manipulation of temperature data or the revelation that warming does not increase intensity or frequency of storms, droughts, floods, etc… or the IPCC claim that warming will destroy rainforests. It would take far too long to educate GM on the complete list of fraudulent material found in the IPCC reports, so I will stick to the “cherry picking” of temperature stations used to determine the “global climate”. GM, the only measurable warming we have seen in our atmosphere is of a local variety, urban heat island effect and land usage. The warmist camp has created a global warming bias by eliminating temperature stations that are either in rural locations, higher elevations and/or higher latitudes. There is only 1 station left to record all temperatures above 65N, and it is located in an area nicknamed “the garden spot of the arctic” due to its unusually warm tendencies. There are many stations above 65N that still report accurate temperatures to NOAA, but NOAA refuses to utilize them for proper record keeping. 75% of the thousands of stations removed were reporting temperatures that would cause the temperature average to decline, this is how the warmists can claim the Earth is getting warmer. Imagine if we removed 75% of the cold days in a year, what would happen to the “average” annual temperature. This is simply fraud. If the alarmists truly wanted to get the most accurate global mean temperature, they would be adding stations and not eliminatig them. And do not let me mislead you, the staions are still there and are still recording temperatures, but the “inconvenient truth” they hold is ignored by the criminals in the alarmist camp. This behavior is indefensible, but it would amuse me to see you try.

  82. let say you’re right about “the world keeps getting hotter” despite the global cooling for the last 8 or so years

    Jack, let’s put aside the fact that climate isn’t defined on an 8 year time scale, and note that global cooling should at least imply that the Earth has been getting colder since 2002. It hasn’t http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt.

    And what’s with the scare quotes around travesty?

    If true, that could settle it for Nature as a journal, right?

    Lubos, your logic escapes me, are you sure you’re a practicing scientist? The allegation was that this debate has been hidden from the public eye, so wouldn’t your prediction prove my point?

    Beyond that, are you arguing that a single paper establishes the reputation of a journal or that its publication would to overturn the consensus of climate science?

    Finally, the implication that leading journals will publish “obviously correct” papers only now that some “taboo” has been broken gives the lie to your response to GM @47 that “only people like you talk about “conspiracies” “

  83. jose lori

    Global warming was never about science or facts, the alarmists continue to ignore both. It was about an anti-capitalist agenda, a drive for power, and a hunger for control – driven by hate. When you are so blinded by ideology and driven by hatred, you are incapable of seeing that you are completely wrong and you will defend until the end the indefensible: Climate change is natural, not driven by man. Anyone that thinks CO2 is a pollutant is a moron.

  84. Dear GM #70,

    of course that my comments about the advancing Western Himalayan glaciers are peer-reviewed. Reference:

    Glacier velocities across the central Karakoram
    pp. 41-49(9)
    Authors: Copland, Luke; Pope, Sierra; Bishop, Michael P.; Shroder, John F.; Clendon, Penelope; Bush, Andrew; Kamp, Ulrich; Seong, Yeong Bae; Owen, Lewis A.

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte
    nt/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000052/art00006

    Merge the URL to one line.

    In a comment that wasn’t posted, I wrote lots of things why it’s really irrational to try to avoid policies whose timescale exceeds the human life expectancy. If such threats existed and we couldn’t naturally avoid them, we would be in trouble. But they seem not to exist.

    Coal, oil, and even uranium will be more rare in the future. As they’re getting depleted, their price may rise, and wind or solar energy may become competitive. It’s surely not competitive today – and won’t be for 10 years or much more. So governments shouldn’t pretend it is.

    Even if we reduce their consumption, there would still be a downtrend, and depletion at *some* point in the future. And it makes much more sense for us to use it, if we can afford to buy it, then our great grandsons who will hopefully be much more advanced and won’t be eager to burn coal. They may have fusion plants but whatever they have is likely to be more advanced than what we do, so it’s more sensible for us to use it.

    How we should optimally divide the consumption between now and later? Well, the market price tells us the optimal algorithm. If we want and can afford to burn XY of VW, we should. If we can’t, given the price, we won’t. ;-) It’s as simple as that. The limited reserves and all such issues are already fairly reflected in the price.

    Moptop: I could predict things including the bits of PDF files and send you these predictions of mine ;-) but I hope you will be patient enough for a day! ;-) . By the way, do you think that these formulations of mine about the asteroid violate any law? I am convinced that they don’t. :-)

    Cheers
    Lubos Motl

  85. InMD

    Typical shril response by the AGW “camp”, resort to calling people “trolls” when you don’t have an argument.

    And yes, I found this article on Climate Depot. But my favorite science related site is Wattsupwiththat.com by Anthony Watts for a daily update on the latest science.

    Now you say to give an example of whats been falsified, wow, you don’t get out of your echo chamber much do you. You like to slam a site like Climate Depot, probably never having read a single article.

    AGU is based on a theory that rising CO2 levels cause global warming. This may have been the prevailing wisdom 10 years ago when Climate Science was in its infantcy, and no one was really paying attention. But today, study after study shows that CO2 plays a very minor part in climate. NEW scientific evidnce shows that water vapor, cloud cover, Solar Cycles, Cosmic Rays, Oceanogragphic Oscliations and Land Use changes far outweigh the miniscule effects of increasing CO2. None of this new data is even accounted for in the global warming models, as a matter of fact, the IPCC reports even go as far as to say this stuff is not well understood or does not matter.

    Google any of those terms and read the latest science. Google the names Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D, Roger Pielke, Jr Phd, or Roger Pielke, Sr Phd, or Jeff Id, Lubos Motl Phd, Bob Tisdale Phd. These guys are the real deal.

    Lastly, the poster children of AGU theory Micheal Mann, Pchuauri, Phil Jones, James Hansen and theri cronies at the IPCC, have been almost completly discredited. NASA GISS, and NOAA are not far behind in losing credabiltiy.

    The AGU “camp” is still in stage 1 of the five stages of grief after learning AGU climate science is built in part on Fraud.

    Stage 1 Denial
    Stage 2 Anger
    Stage 3 Bargain
    Stage 4 Depression
    Stage 5 Acceptance

    sincerely,
    your “Toll” InMD

  86. InMD

    “CO2 plays a very minor part in climate”

    my previous post should read, CO2 plays a very minor part in climate variation. “I don’t want to imply that CO2 has NO role in climate, it does. Just not with regard to AGU theory.

    InMD

  87. Retool

    They saw the failures in financial model building, they saw it in ecosystem model building, they saw it in predicting wars and economic recessions…and yet they have the hubris to think they can model and predict the climate so accurately? How many times will they make science a casualty before they realise with humility how primitive their methods are against nature? Despicable.

  88. Jon

    Jack: despite the global cooling for the last 8 or so years, still doesn’t mean man-induced CO2 is the cause of that warm, there’s no scientific proof whatsoever, Jinchi.

    As if a single data point 8 years ago represented a trend. If a baseball player hit 50 home runs 8 years ago, then between 40 and 49 for the next 7 years, are they in a slump? No. Similarly, just because a record was set 8 years ago doesn’t mean there is a “cooling” trend.

    And as for “no scientific proof whatsoever”, that’s simply bluster. “Proof” doesn’t exist in science, but the *evidence* is overwhelming: http://tinyurl.com/heatisonline .

    The reason AGW is declared a scam because you are presented with the truth but you refuse to accept it and continue to promote it.

    Back atchya. Denialists are usually not even aware of evidence, or even interested, as you yourself show.

  89. jose lori

    CO2 is an essential nutrient for all photosynthesizing plants, that includes the plants that produce the food we eat. I challenge the alarmists to name me just one plant that has ever been harmed by the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or would be harmed if CO2 doubled or even tripled. Don’t even try, there are none. In fact, if you take away a plants oxygen, it will do just fine but if you take away it’s CO2, it will die.

  90. Dear Jinchi #84,
    “Lubos, your logic escapes me, are you sure you’re a practicing scientist?”

    I am officially not a practicing scientist now. I escaped the left-wing Academic mess. But you may compare my publication record with your favorite alarmist “scientists” whom you know in person.

    Open scholar DOT google DOT com, and type lubos-motl over there.

    Guess who will win.

    “The allegation was that this debate has been hidden from the public eye, so wouldn’t your prediction prove my point?”

    The real debate about this issue has been occurring on the blogosphere and Heartland conferences – but when it comes to journals like Nature, it is just getting started.

    This paper may appear in Nature tomorrow and I won’t read the whole paper before tomorrow, just like you. I am more well-informed about such things than you because I am more important and more interested in these matters than you are, so I may have been given the information. At any rate, we will have exactly the same opportunity to study the paper tomorrow.

    “Beyond that, are you arguing that a single paper establishes the reputation of a journal or that its publication would to overturn the consensus of climate science?”

    Well, indeed, as Albert Einstein said when the “Aryan Scientists” were telling him about the consensus against relativity, so many Nordic-race scientists against him, he said that one person would be enough to prove him wrong. That’s how it works in real science. One paper is enough to change science and one important paper is enough to make a reputation for a journal.

    In the “consensus science”, it didn’t work in this way – that’s because “consensus science” has nothing whatsoever to do with real science. However, the “consensus science” is over. Get used to it. The future philosophy what papers mean and how their importance is evaluated – by their merit – may be closer to the ideas of Albert Einstein than the consensus ideas of yours and other people who have no clue about science and who implicitly hate its fundamental principles such as the irrelevance of brute force relatively to rational and empirical arguments and evidence.

    “Finally, the implication that leading journals will publish ‘obviously correct’ papers only now that some ‘taboo’ has been broken gives the lie to your response to GM @47 that ‘only people like you talk about ‘conspiracies’.”

    I have never used the term “leading journals”, and I don’t consider them to be leading journals. They were clearly not leading journals in climate science for years because they published lower-quality materials than what one could get e.g. at the Climate Audit. Well, it may happen in the real world that a group of well-known but de facto mediocre journals publishes mostly nonsense for several years. It has happened in the past many times – consider e.g. the Continental Drift which was humiliated by the “consensus” of geologists for decades although it was manifestly correct and paramount. If this period of years of mistakes by some well-known people is enough for you to be called “a conspiracy”, then indeed, conspiracies do happen.

    But the AGW “conspiracy” wasn’t really about the hiding of the scientific information from all the people, not even most of the people – which is impossible in this era of modern information technologies. Everyone who was interested in the right answers to some basic climatological questions could have always found the right answer years ago. Only people who wanted to remain dumb or misled remained dumb or misled – but that’s not conspiracy, that’s a tautology because learning requires some active attitude.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  91. moptop

    “CO2 is a harmless trace gas” Sorry Brian, the fact that CO2 is a trace gas doesn’t really have any bearing on the issue. It still remains to be seen whether it is harmless in terms of ocean acidification, but the research sure seems to be leaning that way. I don’t like denialism when it comes from either side, though it is the longest river in the world, and the warmies have been swimming upstream in it for a long time.

  92. Jon

    “CO2 plays a very minor part in climate”

    CO2 contributes anywhere from 9 to 30% towards the overall greenhouse effect…” doesn’t sound minor to me.

  93. Sorbet

    One paper is enough to change science and one important paper is enough to make a reputation for a journal.

    Not necessarily. The paper needs to be really important for that. One paper providing a little bit of contradictory evidence does not debunk the whole enterprise; this is not pure mathematics where one counterexample can disprove a conjecture. It could simply question some details and ask for a theory to be modified. For instance, Gould and Lewontin’s papers on puntuated equilibrium did not suddenly debunk Darwin’s theory but led to some new modified concepts. Similarly Einstein’s theory itself did not completely overturn Newtonian mechanics but provided a more general framework in which Newtonian mechanics was a special case.

    To be honest, I think it is naive to suppose that any single paper could ever “prove” or “disprove” something as complex as climate change.

  94. DocForesight

    Mr. Mooney,
    You cold start by taking a course in Thermodynamics. Considering just these basic facts, one would be naturally skeptical of doom-and-gloom pronouncements of impending end-of-earth events requiring developed countries to return to, and the developing countries to remain in, the subsistence farming age.

    ~70% of earth surface covered by water
    ~90% of land surface unoccupied by humans
    ~95% of atmosphere controlled by water vapor
    ~0.04% of atmosphere is CO2 while 78% is N, 21% O2

    Climate has changed in the past and will change in the future regardless of what humans do. Wise stewardship requires us to minimize pollution and waste. Eliminating energy poverty can lead to eliminating economic poverty which can assure better utilization of natural resources that minimizes pollution and waste. See? Nice circle of life!

    Alarmism has rarely endured close scrutiny. I doubt it will endure here, either.

  95. DocForesight

    Sorry – “cold” should be “could”. Reminder to self: re-read before hitting “submit” button.

  96. jose lori

    Water vapor contributes about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 about 2%. CO2 from human activities, about .02%, These are the FACTS. CO2 is minor indeed.

  97. Your concern is noted.

  98. GM

    “Lubos, your logic escapes me, are you sure you’re a practicing scientist?”
    I am officially not a practicing scientist now. I escaped the left-wing Academic mess. But you may compare my publication record with your favorite alarmist “scientists” whom you know in person.
    Open scholar DOT google DOT com, and type lubos-motl over there.
    Guess who will win.

    You know, or if know, you should know very well that you can not compare this way scientists belonging to different fields with different publication practices. Anyone who does that quick look in the search engine will also find out that you are blown out the water by some fairly mediocre chemists, not to mention the really big ones

    Also, this reminded me something, which I had to bring up earlier:

    If you call climate science “pseudoscience”, then what is string theory? From a purely epistemological perspective??

  99. R Case

    It’s amazing how dense and condescending Mooney and the AGW crowd is. It’s really as if they have been anointed with some special brainpower that the rest of the world hasn’t. If they’re thinking of wiping the slate clean, maybe that’d be a good place for these folks to start to re-think their strategy.

    And if the AGW “climatologists” want to re-build their credibility, then they should extend an olive branch to folks like McIntyre and McKitrick, Motl, Id, and others. I truly believe these are the good guys, because the only agenda they seem to seek is the TRUTH. If given a seat at the table with Schmidt, Mann, Briffa, et. al., I really think something could be accomplished. And the results might be surprising. For everyone. I have no idea what the resultant answers might be, but I do know I’d have a LOT more confidence in it than I do now. And I think others would, as well.

    At least for me, I’d have a great deal more confidence in the forecasts of the Climate Change models if they were able to semi-accurately predict the past.

  100. Steve

    @ Jinchi “this isn’t a court case, we’re talking science.”

    If only that were true. This hasn’t been real science, at least from the alarmists perspective, since the inception of the theory of global warming. You can be sure, though, that if cap and trade is passed that this issue will end up in court. As such, alarmists will be the plaintiff and the burden of proof WILL be incumbent upon them. So, Jinchi, go for it!

    @ Jinchi “So as a skeptic, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what factors are compensating for a known driving force.”

    Jinchi, my friend, you first have to prove (not assume) that CO2 IS a driving force for catastrophic global warming. And, as many here have said, you can’t use computer models because they make assumptions that have no empirical data to support them. So, show us the emprical data that definitively and inarguably proves that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. Hint, you can’t.

  101. GM

    Let’s see, Venezuela may have more oil than Saudi Arabia, we find out in recent weeks. Brazil has a huge find, and by huge, I mean HUGE. There are megabarrels of oil in the Arctic. Giant natural gas deposits have become technologically feasible in the good ol’ U S of A over the past year. So your peak oil thing isn’t looking very good in the near term. In the long term prices and technology will deal with it just fine. As people are fond of saying, the stone age didn’t end when we ran out of stones.

    The huge find in Brazil (the Tupi field) is 8Gb. 8 gigabarrels is about 96 days of world consumption, and this is against a 6-9% depletion rate. And this is the largest finding of the decade. Get real.

    The Venezuelian heavy, oil sands and shales, aren’t even oil and they suffer from the same big problem that Alberta oil sands do – the EROEI (Eneryg Return Of Energy Investment) is abysmally low because you have to dig the stuff out the ground, then boil it, fractionate it, etc., and they ruin the environment on an unimaginable scale (the reason you don’t know that is what’s going on is safely hidden away from the eyes of the public in northern Alberta). And on top of that, you can’t produce them at the same rate as the free flowing oil fountains in the Middle East did in the past, so while they may last for a long time, they won’t do anything to help the Peak Oil situation…

  102. Dear Jon #88,
    you wrote:

    “Similarly, just because a record was set 8 years ago doesn’t mean there is a “cooling” trend.”

    Of course that it does, in this case. Check for “trend estimation” and “linear regression” on Wikipedia to get a basic idea what a “trend” means and how it is calculated. If you suddenly find a warmer year more than a decade ago painfully inconvenient doesn’t mean that the year suddenly disappears. Using the same mathematical techniques of linear regression that gave you those nice positive trends in a decade ending in 1998, one obtains a cooling trend in the period that began in 1998. Or 2001. Or 2002. Or most years after 2000.

    Now, you may try to eagerly promote all signs of recent warmth, and hide all the signs of the warmth in the past, but the result will be just a reflection of your bias – your lack of scientific integrity. The correct, impartial answer to these questions is that there is nothing unusual going on with the temperature, relatively to the natural changes that took place on the Earth for billions of years.

    The evidence is, indeed, overwhelming, but this overwhelming evidence shows that I am right and you are wrong. See e.g. our 880-page NIPCC report,

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1934791288?tag=lubosmotlsref-20

    Note that this is an extensive scientific document, not a web page of an unhinged advocacy group which is what you offered us under the Heat Is Online link. I assure you that the NIPCC team that has put this together wasn’t led by a railway engineer but an award-winning pioneer of climate science. It wasn’t controlled by any governments – that’s why the N appears in the acronym.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  103. InMD

    Wow, Jinchi must have a lot at stake with this AGU thing because he is certanly putting up a fight.

    He has probably hitched his wagon to the whole climate change bandwagon and is hoping beyond hope that this whole climate gate thing dies down so he can get back to saving civilization as we know it. I think he needs to find a new gravy train.

    IMHO, that puts him at Stage 2 of the grieving process, Anger.

    your favorite Troll,
    InMD

  104. moptop

    OK, GM, so what is your problem? Isn’t it self solving? Why not just go to the beach and have a Margarita.

    the reason you don’t know that is what’s going on is safely hidden away from the eyes of the public in northern Alberta

    I know very well what is going on in Alberta, and I approve, tar drowned ducks and all. Maybe you should call your theory “Peak Cheap Oil,” not as scary though. If I knew the future as well as you claim to, I would shut up about it, invest accordingly, and retire wealthy. After all, what is the downside of running out of oil? I mean from your point of view.

  105. jose lori

    To quote Jon:

    ” “CO2 plays a very minor part in climate”

    “CO2 contributes anywhere from 9 to 30% towards the overall greenhouse effect…” (Trenberth)… doesn’t sound minor to me.”

    I can’t believe you quote that as a source. If you actually knew anything about H2O and CO2 infrared absorption spectrum bands overlap, you would know that while CO2 could contribute up to 36% of the greenhouse effect in the absence of water vapor, given the current composition of the atmosphere, the maximum it can contribute is 5% and in actuality is probably closer to 2% to 3%.
    (because of the other greenhouse gases, primarily methane)

    This is a perfect example of what happens when an AGW alarmists is driven by ideology and is unwilling to learn and unable to understand the facts.

    His source is the same guy that has said “it is a travesty that our models did not predict and we cannot explain the cooling of the last 12 years.”

  106. moptop

    Hey, look at the “disastrous setback” for “climate advocacy” in the NYT:

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/whos-conflicted-now/

    However; all is well with the advance of climate *science*.

  107. I am more well-informed about such things than you because I am more important and more interested in these matters than you are

    Uh huh. I guess we’re all lucky that such an esteemed person as yourself is willing to condescend to the wretched masses by commenting on this blog.

    You’ll have to forgive your lessers if we wait to read this Earth-shattering new article (which you haven’t finished yourself and which is apparently going to be published in some low-quality journal), before we buy the headstone for climate science.

    as Albert Einstein said when the “Aryan Scientists” were telling him about the consensus against relativity, so many Nordic-race scientists against him ….

    Careful, here. Remember the first person to compare his opposition to the Nazis loses the argument.

    The future philosophy what papers mean and how their importance is evaluated – by their merit – may be closer to the ideas of Albert Einstein than the consensus ideas of yours and other people who have no clue about science and who implicitly hate its fundamental principles such as the irrelevance of brute force relatively to rational and empirical arguments and evidence.

    OK. So Einstein’s theories aren’t consensus science?

  108. GM

    I know very well what is going on in Alberta, and I approve, tar drowned ducks and all. Maybe you should call your theory “Peak Cheap Oil,” not as scary though. If I knew the future as well as you claim to, I would shut up about it, invest accordingly, and retire wealthy. After all, what is the downside of running out of oil? I mean from your point of view.

    One word: EROEI

    Learn what it means and its implication

  109. GM

    Dear GM #70,
    of course that my comments about the advancing Western Himalayan glaciers are peer-reviewed. Reference:
    Glacier velocities across the central Karakoram
    pp. 41-49(9)
    Authors: Copland, Luke; Pope, Sierra; Bishop, Michael P.; Shroder, John F.; Clendon, Penelope; Bush, Andrew; Kamp, Ulrich; Seong, Yeong Bae; Owen, Lewis A.

    Maybe I am too unfamiliar with the field, but I didn’t exaclty get it where in that article they say that glaciers are growing and slowing down. And it was only a study of several glaciers in Karakorum, the Himalayan glaciers weren’t even mentioned.

  110. GM

    In a comment that wasn’t posted, I wrote lots of things why it’s really irrational to try to avoid policies whose timescale exceeds the human life expectancy. If such threats existed and we couldn’t naturally avoid them, we would be in trouble. But they seem not to exist.

    If they didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be so many civilizations that crahsed because they overshot the carrying capacity of their environment


    Coal, oil, and even uranium will be more rare in the future. As they’re getting depleted, their price may rise, and wind or solar energy may become competitive. It’s surely not competitive today – and won’t be for 10 years or much more. So governments shouldn’t pretend it is.
    Even if we reduce their consumption, there would still be a downtrend, and depletion at *some* point in the future. And it makes much more sense for us to use it, if we can afford to buy it, then our great grandsons who will hopefully be much more advanced and won’t be eager to burn coal. They may have fusion plants but whatever they have is likely to be more advanced than what we do, so it’s more sensible for us to use it.
    How we should optimally divide the consumption between now and later? Well, the market price tells us the optimal algorithm. If we want and can afford to burn XY of VW, we should. If we can’t, given the price, we won’t. It’s as simple as that. The limited reserves and all such issues are already fairly reflected in the price.

    That’s the standard response based on supreficial, having-nothing-to-do-with-reality economic theory.

    What happens in reality is that the prices signal comes within months to a few years at best before really serious problems arise, while the time to start doing something about them, such as developing alternative energy sources (assuming they exist) and retooling the infrastructure, is several decades before that.

    The price signal is not a reliable indicator when it comes to long-term trends. If it was, prices of non-renewable resources would have been steadily rising all the time, in the case of oil from the moment the first well was drilled in 1859 in Pennsylvania. Because from that very moment depletion started. But they didn’t…

  111. jose lori

    I can’t wait for someone to come to Jon’s aid and claim that CO2 actually contributes 80% of the green house effect. And guess what, he would be correct. But don’t be alarmed, this is only true for that region of the atmosphere from 25 to 35KM above the surface – that is, in the stratosphere.

  112. GM

    In a comment that wasn’t posted, I wrote lots of things why it’s really irrational to try to avoid policies whose timescale exceeds the human life expectancy. If such threats existed and we couldn’t naturally avoid them, we would be in trouble. But they seem not to exist.

    If they didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be so many civilizations that crahsed because they overshot the carrying capacity of their environment


    Coal, oil, and even uranium will be more rare in the future. As they’re getting depleted, their price may rise, and wind or solar energy may become competitive. It’s surely not competitive today – and won’t be for 10 years or much more. So governments shouldn’t pretend it is.
    Even if we reduce their consumption, there would still be a downtrend, and depletion at *some* point in the future. And it makes much more sense for us to use it, if we can afford to buy it, then our great grandsons who will hopefully be much more advanced and won’t be eager to burn coal. They may have fusion plants but whatever they have is likely to be more advanced than what we do, so it’s more sensible for us to use it.
    How we should optimally divide the consumption between now and later? Well, the market price tells us the optimal algorithm. If we want and can afford to burn XY of VW, we should. If we can’t, given the price, we won’t. It’s as simple as that. The limited reserves and all such issues are already fairly reflected in the price.

    That’s the standard response based on supreficial, having-nothing-to-do-with-reality economic theory. What happens in reality is that the prices signal comes within months to a few years at best before really serious problems arise, while the time to start doing something about them, such as developing alternative energy sources (assuming they exist) and retooling the infrastructure, is several decades before that. The price signal is not a reliable indicator when it comes to long-term trends. If it was, prices of non-renewable resources would have been steadily rising all the time, in the case of oil from the moment the first well was drilled in 1859 in Pennsylvania. Because from that very moment depletion started. But they didn’t…

  113. InMD

    Hmm, now my correction to my own post is being misquoted (if thats possible)

    So I accidently deleted the words after “climate” in my post, and then posted this correction following my original post

    “CO2 plays a very minor part in climate”

    “my previous post should read, CO2 plays a very minor part in climate variation. “I don’t want to imply that CO2 has NO role in climate, it does. Just not with regard to AGU theory.”

    I am well aware of CO2 mixing at various lattitudes, absorbtion over land and water, and concentrations at various altitudes, daytime versus nighttime radiation and re-radiation etc, It would be idiodic to suggest that CO2 has no effect, its just not likely to be the boogyman that the AGW “camp” makes it out to be, and overall is a small driver of warming.

    So in the words of Phil Jones, my comment is being taken out of context.

    Your favorite Troll,
    InMD

  114. Of course that it does, in this case. Check for “trend estimation” and “linear regression” on Wikipedia to get a basic idea what a “trend” means and how it is calculated

    Or maybe you could look at the data.
    (Year – Degrees above reference level)
    2002 – 0.56
    2009 – 0.57

    Hmmm…. doesn’t look like a decline so far. Of course, you’ll accuse me of cherry picking years, so lets look at some more data:

    2000 – 0.33
    2001 – 0.48 – Ok going up
    2002 – 0.56 – ……going up
    2003 – 0.55 – Hah! global cooling!
    2004 – 0.49 – AGW is officially over!!!
    2005 – 0.63 – God damnit!
    2006 – 0.54 – Hah! global cooling!
    2007 – 0.57 – That can’t be right?
    2008 – 0.43 – Suck on it Al Gore
    2009 – 0.57 – Son of a ….

    Or, if your serious about your linear regression and it’s implications for long term patterns, you’d look at the whole data series and see the obvious: The globe has been getting warmer with no end in sight.

    (BTW, 1998 George Will’s hottest year ever (0.56) – ties for 4th these days)

  115. John Blake

    Not in the IPCC, not in Hansen’s GISS/NASA nor Mann’s notorious Penn State ESSC, most certainly not in Briffa and Jones’ corrupt and deceitful Hadley CRU, is there now or have there ever been objective, rational climate studies based on verifiable physical fact. No particular expertise is required to note that five-sixths of surface-temperature stations have been spuriously deleted; that Warmists’ long-term charts actually invert historical cycles when they are not fraudulently misrepresenting data from 1960 on. Climate Cultists’ apocalyptic propaganda functions in support of an international Green Gang pushing their ruinous Cap-and-Trade agenda in a Thieves Market that has already enriched the criminally malfeasant Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri by hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars.

    Now as Earth enters a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum at the overdue end of our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, Green Gang sabotage of global energy economies –coal, oil, nuclear– tempts death-eating Luddite sociopaths to celebrate the demise of post-Enlightenment industrial civilization (see Keith Farnish, “Time’s Up”). Like Salafi/Wahabi terrorists, these festering nihilistic wreckers literally know no bounds.

  116. Steve

    @ Jinchi #116 – Thank you, Jinchi! You have shown that even when you average to a yearly value, there has been no statistical warming over the 2000 – 2009, despite a continued increase in greenhouse gases. If, however, you had shown folks a graph with more resolution, the decreasing temp trend becomes obvious. You guys got pretty good at hiding things, though.

    Gotta admit, though, the comments beside the annual temps were a hoot.

  117. Konrad

    As a CO2 skeptic I would say that people who are truly concerned about environmental issues should be thrilled with the way the AGW hoax is collapsing. I had concerns that AGW was synonymous with environment in public perception and that the baby was going to be thrown out with the bath water. The recent Pew polling indicates that this is not the case http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010. While concerns about AGW rated dead last, general environmental concerns rated far higher. This may mean that the world can move forward in addressing real environmental issues. Those that sought to use the public’s legitimate concerns about the environment as a stalking horse for global government, reduced freedom, less democracy, wealth transfer and dodgy carbon ponzi schemes can be sidelined for decades. Those truly concerned about the environment should be celebrating the end of the AGW hoax. The stalking horse is dead and those still flogging it are showing their true colours.

  118. Dear Jinchi #109,

    “Uh huh. I guess we’re all lucky that such an esteemed person as yourself is willing to condescend to the wretched masses by commenting on this blog.”

    exactly and thanks. That was the most sensible thing you wrote today – and probably for many years.

    “Careful, here. Remember the first person to compare his opposition to the Nazis loses the argument.”

    This rule obviously didn’t work here. The analogy is extremely good, important, and serious.

    “OK. So Einstein’s theories aren’t consensus science?”

    Of course they’re not. Most people – and probably even most science PhDs – don’t really believe relativity. Look at any physics forum. Relativity is true because the scientific evidence based on the experiments and mathematical arguments supports it, but only a small portion of the people – and even a minority of the scientists – actively understand why it is really so.

    Of course that I can choose a sample of people whose majority will properly understand relativity. But in the very same way, I can collect a sample of people who will understand the basic issues about climate change – such as the fact that there is nothing to worry about. The real problem of the “consensus” is that these knowledgeable people don’t combine automatically. If you ask random people who don’t know much or who are not sufficiently impartial to tell themselves the truth, you will learn that the “consensus” is that relativity is wrong and climate change is a threat.

    Knowledge in science is a very subtle thing and it has nothing to do with the consensus.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  119. Dear GM #111,

    I know that you don’t know the gravitational measurements of the glaciers and the related terminology. That’s why I offered you the link to the Discovery popular article which contains exactly the same information concerning the issues we’re interested in here. You protested, just for the sake of protesting. There’s no possible justification of such a protest. At least, you could have figured out that it was the same geographic location described in both articles – popular and peer-reviewed.

    Karakoram is actually what was being described in the Discovery article, too. For example, K2, the second highest peak on the Earth, is in the Karakoram Range which is a part of the Greater Himalayas. The advancing glaciers are in that region.

    Concerning your GM #112 i.e. #114 (the same), it is just an environmentalist myth – the kind of “Jared Diamond science” – that civilizations were crashing because of depleted resources or environmental reasons. Virtually no civilization in the known history satisfies this criterion. Most of them were defeated by stronger or more obnoxious competing civilizations. It was all about the military, economic power, ideology, and/or natality rate. The Stone Age didn’t end when people ran out of stones. Your comment that civilizations were routinely ending because of the [green fairy-tales] is just a silly propaganda.

    So is your comment that the price doesn’t know about long-term signals. The price knows everything it must know about any timescale. It’s just the people who sometimes don’t know – but when the information is simply not available, there’s no possible fix (unless someone directly and reliably talks to God or whatever haha). It’s nonsensical to say that “depletion started in the year XY”. Depletion technically occurs whenever people consume the resource. That doesn’t mean that there is something qualitative going on since the year XY. In the long run, people did very well that their markets put the prices on the levels that we have seen.

    Cheers
    LM

  120. GM

    I am officially not a practicing scientist now. I escaped the left-wing Academic mess.

    Now tell me how could one read that and not see it as coming from someone who is not basing his opinion on the scientific method, but on his own, in this case right-wing political views. It seems like there are a lot of prominent Czech denilaists, maybe it has something to do with anti-communist sentiments, I don’t really know, but it doesn’t seem to be based on science

  121. If, however, you had shown folks a graph with more resolution, the decreasing temp trend becomes obvious.

    No Steve, I pointed out that you don’t measure the long term trend by looking at short term variations.

    Yearly temperature data are noisy, Seasonal data are noisier and Monthly data are noisier than that. You can’t claim to see a decreasing long term trend by squinting at “higher resolution” data. By your standard, we could have claimed that global warming ended in 1974, 1985, 1991, and 1999, each of which was significantly colder than the years prior. Except it didn’t. The long term trend has continued to rise. The decade from 2000-2009 was hotter than the decade from 1995-2004 which was hotter than the decade from 1990-1999 which was hotter than the decade from 1985-1994 …. and we’re right on track for 2005-2014 to break the record again.

    There is no decreasing trend for you to see.

  122. fred g

    The big problem is that the “science” behind global warming has been proven to be illusory. Since 2003 it has been known that in the longer-term ice core dataset CO2 levels follow, not precede temperature changes, and thus did not cause warming.

    The other “evidence” for global warming is computer models that were not tested on “out-of-sample” data for validation, apparently since their creators did not know any better. Research testing how they have predicted climate since their creation shows that they have done execrably.

    Also, since CO2 comprises only a very small part of the atmosphere, for it to be able to cause harmful warming it must have “feedback” effects on more determinative greenhouse agents, such as water vapor. Research by MIT’s Richard Lindzen has shown that the global warming crowd greatly overstated any feedback effects CO2 has, which actually appear to be negative.

    Finally, it has been shown that the climate record datasets have been shamelessly falsified by pro-warming “scientists” in charge of maintaining the data. The recent expose by Joe DiLeo demonstrates this point.

    Global warming theory has lost traction simply because it has been shown to be false. Mooney’s side is losing on global warming because they have been shown to be wrong on the science.

  123. Dear GM #121,

    I care about science a lot, but I also do care about other things, and the amount of scary other things in the Academia was just way higher than what I could swallow. The communists have seriously hurt my country and reduced my freedoms in the first 1/2 of my life so far and I would just find it utterly unacceptable for them – and their feminist, environmentalist, reverse racist, or otherwise politically correct comrades – to limit them in the continuing parts of my life, too. I realized that I had no realistic way to stop them from intimidating and hurting people like me, so the only conceivable solution was to escape.

    When we specifically talk about the climate debate, this stuff has always been about politics. The idea that it is science that the advocates of the “action” care about is completely ludicrous. It’s about their dreams to qualitatively reorganize the human society – and make them important in the new structures along the way. They don’t care about science. It doesn’t matter what science says. They care about the political consequences. Climate science has just been abused as a hostage, a fake justification, being brutally distorted along the way. But that era is probably over.

    Cheers
    LM

  124. Jon

    Steve: there has been no statistical warming over the 2000 – 2009, despite a continued increase in greenhouse gases.

    Climate scientists don’t try to predict the weather year by year. If someone gave you the idea that they did, you were misinformed. And obviously, a system that looks noisy year to year can have clear trends over longer periods.

  125. GM

    I know that you don’t know the gravitational measurements of the glaciers and the related terminology. That’s why I offered you the link to the Discovery popular article which contains exactly the same information concerning the issues we’re interested in here. You protested, just for the sake of protesting. There’s no possible justification of such a protest. At least, you could have figured out that it was the same geographic location described in both articles – popular and peer-reviewed.

    Karakoram is actually what was being described in the Discovery article, too. For example, K2, the second highest peak on the Earth, is in the Karakoram Range which is a part of the Greater Himalayas. The advancing glaciers are in that region.

    This is a quoute from the Dsicovery article:

    Throughout much of the Tibetan Plateau, high-altitude glaciers are dwindling in the face of rising temperatures. The situation is potentially dire for the hundreds of millions of people living in China, India and throughout southeast Asia who depend on the glaciers for their water supply.

    But in the rugged western corner of the plateau, the story is different, according to a new study. Among legendary peaks of Mt. Everest like K2 and Nanga Parbat, glaciers with a penthouse view of the world are growing, and have been for almost three decades.

    It still clearly says that most of the glaciers are shrinking. That’s exactly what people call cherry picking

    Concerning your GM #112 i.e. #114 (the same), it is just an environmentalist myth – the kind of “Jared Diamond science” – that civilizations were crashing because of depleted resources or environmental reasons. Virtually no civilization in the known history satisfies this criterion. Most of them were defeated by stronger or more obnoxious competing civilizations. It was all about the military, economic power, ideology, and/or natality rate. The Stone Age didn’t end when people ran out of stones. Your comment that civilizations were routinely ending because of the [green fairy-tales] is just a silly propaganda.

    Easter Island definitely didn’t end because of invasion, and this case alone is sufficient to invalidate your claims. You may not agree with the rest of the list, and it’s long, but a lot of the Paicific Island are indispiutable cases.

    Moreover, we have present-day examples such as Haiti (cut down all their forest, overpopulaed, now an easy victim of every hurricane that passes there) and Yemen (pumped out all the groundwater, breeded all the way to 23 million people in one of the most arid regions in the world), and we will have many more in the future all over the world.

    So is your comment that the price doesn’t know about long-term signals. The price knows everything it must know about any timescale. It’s just the people who sometimes don’t know – but when the information is simply not available, there’s no possible fix (unless someone directly and reliably talks to God or whatever haha). It’s nonsensical to say that “depletion started in the year XY”. Depletion technically occurs whenever people consume the resource. That doesn’t mean that there is something qualitative going on since the year XY. In the long run, people did very well that their markets put the prices on the levels that we have seen.

    The information is available, but it isn’t available to the market. This is the problem. I would think that a professional scientist would make a distinction between the market and the phyisical reality, very strange abd very disturbing that you don’t

  126. Jon

    Since 2003 it has been known that in the longer-term ice core dataset CO2 levels follow, not precede temperature changes, and thus did not cause warming.

    This is a common climate science canard, addressed here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php

    The other “evidence” for global warming is computer models that were not tested on “out-of-sample” data for validation, apparently since their creators did not know any better.

    Here’s a discussion of the models, and why the scientific community accepts them, along with non-model supporting evidence:

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/models-are-unproven.php

    Also, since CO2 comprises only a very small part of the atmosphere, for it to be able to cause harmful warming it must have “feedback” effects on more determinative greenhouse agents, such as water vapor.

    Addressed here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.php

    The recent expose by Joe DiLeo demonstrates this point.

    Who is Joe DiLeo? I couldn’t find him on Google. Do you have a link?

  127. GM

    When we specifically talk about the climate debate, this stuff has always been about politics. The idea that it is science that the advocates of the “action” care about is completely ludicrous. It’s about their dreams to qualitatively reorganize the human society – and make them important in the new structures along the way. They don’t care about science. It doesn’t matter what science says. They care about the political consequences. Climate science has just been abused as a hostage, a fake justification, being brutally distorted along the way. But that era is probably over.

    Any evidence to back up your claims? And why would thousands of scientists from all over the world share the same “dreams”. Sounds like a very weird coincidence that all the climate scientists happen to share the left-wing misanthropic agenda that you accuse them of.

    BTW, the “left-wing” and communists are just as hopelessly anthropocentric as the right-wing with respect to what actually has to be done to get us out of the overshoot. Cap-and-trade is completely inadequate for that purpose. If climate science is to be taken seriously, we need to go cold turkey and start decreasing both population and consumption, and do that immediately. This is not at all part of the conversation. You make absolutely no sense

  128. InMD

    GM,
    Oops, I guess you did not see this latest headline

    Manufactured ‘Science’: Another IPCC Scientist Reveals How UN Scientists talked about ‘trying to make IPCC report so dramatic that US would just have to sign Kyoto Protocol’

    Revelations daily…..
    What are you reading?

  129. Steve

    @ Jinchi 121 “The long term trend has continued to rise.”

    That all depends on how you draw the line. Up until 2000, the trend line had a steeper slope. After 2009, it had a less steep slope. All that proves is that you can alter the slope of the trend line to include the obvious inflection point, and still claim overall warming. That’s the kind of “hide the data” mathematics we have come to expect from alarmists.

    @ Jon 124 – OMG! Now look who’s saying that short-term trends are not significant! Saying 10 years is not significant but 30 years is (with regard to Earth’s climate history), is the height of hypocracy. However, if we are going to debate short-term trends, then let’s at least take it back to the end of the Little Ice Age, before mankind began burning fossil fuels in great quantities. In doing so, we see that the overall slope of the warming has NOT changed. There are excursions above and below the line that correspond to ocean oscillations. This tells us that the warming trend started at least 100 years before mankind entered the picture with GHGs, continued (at least) into the the early 2000s, and is not outside of natural variation.

  130. To Invent Armageddon

    When software supposes the world ends in flame,
    And Hansen and Gore paint brushstrokes of blame,
    And other false prophets scream, “GREEN” in their name,
    I wonder a bit, just a tiny amount,
    How many people know what it’s about,
    And how many good folk can see past the shame
    While driving around in their carbon-mobiles,
    immersed in the guilt of spinning their wheels,
    Intent on respecting the earth just the same,
    They play the victim while playing the game!

    Warming and cooling are twins of the world,
    But one twin is cruel and one twin is good.
    You’d know the cruel one if you saw his work,
    When fog freezes flesh and wolves howl in the murk,
    When the Vikings were booted from Greenland’s embrace,
    And the so-called “little ice-age” tried it’s best to erase
    All that we made that the warm winds delivered,
    As the darkness descended, we froze and we shivered,
    Awaiting the warming that came far too late,
    A third of humanity slaughtered by fate.

    The globe still recovers and glaciers still melt,
    And though a chill in the air can almost be felt,
    There’s nothing more normal than warming that’s global,
    Despite Chicken Littles droning on about weather
    And whether or not science daring to question
    Their dogma is legal, and should even be mentioned,
    Their hockey-stick lies tilt mad at the skies,
    To invent armageddon, true science DIES…

    .
    .
    © Dave Stephens 2009

  131. Dev

    The main failing of the ‘warmers’ is not understanding that the AGW movement is a POLITICAL one that chops science up and rearranges it in whatever way will support their argument.

  132. That all depends on how you draw the line. Up until 2000, the trend line had a steeper slope.

    Nope. You have to account for the fluctuations that you already know are in the signal.

    Take a look at the whole data series http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt. It’s easy enough to load into Excel or Matlab.

    Plot the data with whatever smoothing you like (e.g. 3, 5, 10, 30 years).

    If you use anything longer than a 5 year smoothing, you won’t see any significant change in the slope since the mid 1970′s. If you use a coarser smoothing you’ll see much larger breaks in the slope than you see today in 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1993, and 2000. But these were all very short term, lasting a few years at most and were all followed by rapid positive increases that more than made up for the difference. In other words, you aren’t seeing anything new.

    To make any serious claim that there has been a change in the long term trend starting around 2005 we would have needed to either see significant drops in the temperature (greater than 0.4 C) or we’ll need a longer time series.

  133. lucklucky

    “Sounds like a very weird coincidence that all the climate scientists happen to share the left-wing misanthropic agenda that you accuse them of.”

    I think you should study sovietology issue: According to Kevin Brennan:
    “Sovietology failed because it operated in an environment that encouraged failure. Sovietologists of all political stripes were given strong incentives to ignore certain facts and focus their interest in other areas. I don’t mean to suggest that there was a giant conspiracy at work; there wasn’t. It was just that there were no careers to be had in questioning the conventional wisdom…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Soviet_collapse

    I am always surprised to see scientists discussing “Earth Temperature” when it is impossible to measure with any reliability with less than a couple degrees…and worse we don’t have reliable time data….

  134. SouthboundJones

    You Climategate Deniers got yourselves into this situation. Despite outspending the Skeptics 10-to-1 and getting every major world government and media outlet on your side your cause is still lost.

    It’s time to stop whining about Skeptics and place the blame where it belongs: the CRU gang, Pachauri and Mann and all the rest of your clowns.

  135. fred g

    Jon:

    Climate Models:

    The climate models have been empirically been shown to be poor performers. See:

    http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    This is not surprising since few of those who constructed them have any knowledge of how to create valid computer models. See:

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf

    I do quite a bit of computer modeling. I read a paper on climate modeling and was astounded with the absolute naivete of the authors. They thought that just because a computer model spit out some result it should be accepted as true. No out of sample testing needed. A very dangerous view of computer modeling.

    CO2 follows warming:

    Nowhere in the article you cited can they say that CO2 changes preceded or caused warming. Either CO2 rises followed or at best occurred at the same time. No causation implied in either case. Unproven theory doesn’t count.

    D’ALeo on the temperature data problems:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

    See video at:

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

    There is a massive literature accumulating on devastating problems with the temperature record. All claims that “this year is among the warmest on record” that is put forth by AGW mouthpieces are rubbish and you know it.

    Feedback:

    CO2 is approximately .04% of the earth’s atmosphere. Lindzen points out that CO2, at this low level of concentration cannot cause harmful warming by itself. His studies have shown that CO2′s effects on the other components of the climate system are not to potentiate them to the extent required by AGW theory. For this research, Google Lindzen MIT.

  136. InMD

    Folks,
    This is an example of the eco nuts that are out there. 100% chance they attended COP15!!!

    http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1829759

  137. If it's not science it's CRAP

    It’s remarkable how the alarmist dudes here don’t understand a very simple point; if they cannot even predict the last ten years of temperature stagnation, how are they going to predict the friggin climate for the next century (which they routinely claim to do). It’s time to shed the infallibility complex.

  138. GM

    This is an example of the eco nuts that are out there. 100% chance they attended COP15!!!

    Simple question – what happens when you grow exponentially by 1.5% a year in a finite system with fixed and limited energy input and practically no material input?

    Do the math – if this continues for a 1000 years, you end up with 120 people on each square meter of land surface (including the Antarctic). If you think this is possible to continue forever, the you are nuts

  139. Kate

    GM – now we’re getting right down to the crux of the matter, aren’t we.

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    - Professor Maurice King

  140. GM

    GM – now we’re getting right down to the crux of the matter, aren’t we.

    Sort of. I=PAT. Where I is the environmental impact, P is the population and A and T are the affluence and technology factor. Axiomaic, can’t argue with that. Also:

    dN/dt = rN(1-N/K), where N is the population, r is the growth rate and K is the carrying capacity; i.e. you can’t be destroying the carrying capacity and expect not to crash.

    Not only are these things obvious from first principles, but ecologists have been studying them for decades and there is plenty of empirical data demonstrating how unconstrained exponential growth leads to eventual hard crash.

    Or you’re going to deny that too??

    This isn’t misanthropy or anything like that, it is the few people capable of thinking rationally and not being afraid to accept the inescapable conclusions that logic and facts lead them to. Human population will have to be brought in line with the carrying capacity of the planet, whether we want it or not, the question is whether it will be voluntary, controlled and organized so that civilization survives, or it will be chaotic and violent, wiping out civilization and much of the carrying capacity of the planet in the process.

    Climate change is only one manifestation of the overshoot, and it may not even be the first limiting factor that will hit us (energy is the primary candidate for that).

  141. Jon

    It’s time to shed the infallibility complex.

    Yes, “infallibility”, that’s why the IPCC reports use hubris-filled words like “uncertainty” and “likely” every two sentences.

  142. InMD

    Getting OT here, but ……

    Right now, you could fit the entire world population of 6,000,000,000 people within the state of Texas.

    Each person would still have a plot of land about 35ft x 35ft. Thats probably bigger than the basement appartment you live in at your mother’s house !!!!

    A family of 5 would have 6,240 sq ft to live on. Thats like 80 ft x 80 ft.

    Your favorite Troll,
    InMD

  143. GM

    Right now, you could fit the entire world population of 6,000,000,000 people within the state of Texas.
    Each person would still have a plot of land about 35ft x 35ft. Thats probably bigger than the basement appartment you live in at your mother’s house !!!!
    A family of 5 would have 6,240 sq ft to live on. Thats like 80 ft x 80 ft.

    Sorry for being rude, but are you really so dumb that you don’t make a difference between physically fitting people in some amount of space and feeding them and providing them with everything else they need/want, or you’re just trolling???

  144. fred g

    Jon:

    Climate Models:

    The climate models have been empirically been shown to be poor performers. See:

    http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    This is not surprising since few of those who constructed them have any knowledge of how to create valid computer models. See:

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf

    I do quite a bit of computer modeling. I read a paper on climate modeling and was astounded with the absolute naivete of the authors. They thought that just because a computer model spit out some result it should be accepted as true. No out of sample testing needed. A very dangerous view of computer modeling.

    CO2 follows warming:

    Nowhere in the article you cited can they say that CO2 changes preceded or caused warming. Either CO2 rises followed or at best occurred at the same time. No causation implied in either case. Unproven theory doesn’t count.

  145. fred g

    Jon:

    D’ALeo on the temperature data problems:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

    See video at:

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

    There is a massive literature accumulating on devastating problems with the temperature record. All claims that “this year is among the warmest on record” that is put forth by AGW mouthpieces are rubbish and you know it.

    Feedback:

    CO2 is approximately .04% of the earth’s atmosphere. Lindzen points out that CO2, at this low level of concentration cannot cause harmful warming by itself. His studies have shown that CO2’s effects on the other components of the climate system are not to potentiate them to the extent required by AGW theory. For this research, Google Lindzen MIT.

  146. fred g

    Jon:

    D’ALeo on the temperature data problems:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf

    See video at:

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

    There is a massive literature accumulating on devastating problems with the temperature record. All claims that “this year is among the warmest on record” that is put forth by AGW mouthpieces are rubbish.

  147. Jon

    Well, if you can do better at computer modeling, then publish something. Or someone like you should publish something. The models have been around for how long? Quite a while. If someone can publish something that proves them wrong, then their career will be made. But that hasn’t happened. And it’s not for lack of parties willing to fund the studies.

  148. InMD

    GM, please calculate this for me, I am having trouble with the math. I could not find the necessary functions in Matlab.

    dN/dt = rN(1-N/(K-x))

    Where x is the total number of people who will die as a result of 1 big asteroid strike + 1 super volcano + 2 Ice Ages + 1 Global warming + malaria + numerous global plagues + Nuclear Holocost + Aliens

    Your favorite Troll,
    InMD

  149. Jon

    No causation implied in either case. Unproven theory doesn’t count.

    There are plenty of studies that show causation: http://tinyurl.com/heatisonline

    Nothing is ever “proven” in science, even Newton’s theory of gravity was never “proven,” but the evidence for AGW is overwhelming.

  150. InMD

    Jon,
    It looks like your spell checker is not working. When you typed “underwhelming” it came out as overwhelming.

    Thats too darn funny, you should fix that because people might think you typed overwhelming on purpose.

    Just looking out for your reputation.

    InMD

  151. Jon

    Right, InMD, I’m sure you read all the summaries of those papers and are going to go out tomorrow to your library and read them (not).

    The reason why you’re *not* going to read them (or any of the other evidence not mentioned in that list of papers), is because you’re fundamentally not interested in science. You’re interested in politics. And when politics contradicts science, it doesn’t work for you.

  152. Adela Kostea,Chicago,USA

    Dear Sir,

    You should be ashamed of yourself for propagating an alarmist theory which has no base in reality whatsoever.
    Because of irresponsible people like you, some children don`t want to do their home work or even go to school, because “what is the point, we are all going to die soon from global warming”!
    But people allover the world have already waken up and see this whole thing for what it is, meaning a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of “wealth redistribution”.
    On April 28 1975 Time magazine had on its front cover the title GLOBAL COOLING!!, with an article, signed by climate scientists, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die of freezing.
    After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the so called climate scientists, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming……the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc.
    In 1992 Al Gore said that “the time for a debate is over, the science is settled”…..
    This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled.
    Science my dear sir, does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy.
    If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right.
    I could give you many examples, such as that of Charles Darwin.
    When he first presented his theory of the evolution of species, all the scientists laughed at him and ridiculed him…in the end he was right and they were wrong.
    When Galileo said the Earth is spinning, the rest of the scientists accused him of heresy…but it turned out he was right and they were all wrong.
    After 15 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the “scientists” noticed that the planet is not warming, but is actually cooling, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to “Climate Change”, just in case, to have all possibilities covered.
    Soon, my dear sir the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud.
    People like yourself will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that your actions have caused.
    Just like when a doctor who gives out the wrong diagnosis and causes harm to the patient as a result, just like in such a case the doctor has the license suspended and has to pay damages or even go to prison, people like you will soon face the consequences of the lies you have imposed on the world for so many years.

  153. InMD

    Library? Are you joking? Are you like 80 years old?

    Come on man, get with the times. I have RSS news feeds set up for the following sites ( and a few more).

    Atmoz
    Real Climate
    Stoat
    Bishop Hill
    Climate Audit
    Climate Science
    CO2 science
    ICECAP
    The Air Vent
    Climate Depot
    Wattspwiththat
    Dot Earth
    Planet Gore

    I get a steady stream of up to date developments for all things Climate, I am a Climate Junkie (or Troll as you like to refer). I am a consulant and travel all the time, and have pleanty of down time on the road where I choose to stay on top of climate news. It beats the crap out of reading fiction, although sometimes the junk your people write looks a lot like fiction.

    What about you, how do you stay so informed?

    Your favorite Troll,
    InMD

  154. bilbo

    Hey Skeptics! Simple poll (no fancy-pants liberal greenie evil-doer math required):

    Have you ever read an entire IPCC report cover-to-cover?

    Just respond to this with a simple “yes” or “no.” Since I already know it’s coming, I’ll interpret a rant as a “no.” I’m curious.

  155. GM

    Because of irresponsible people like you, some children don`t want to do their home work or even go to school, because “what is the point, we are all going to die soon from global warming”!

    That’s a very good question that once you realize the real hopelessness of our predicament, you ask yourself every day

    Because really the only thing that brings sense to human existence is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the universe, and most of what has been accumulated at a great cost is going to be lost in the collapse of the industrial civilization.

  156. Jon

    Library? Are you joking? Are you like 80 years old?

    Never heard of primary sources, eh, InMD? Instead, you’re reading Planet Gore. OK, thanks. That explains some things.

  157. Jon

    Adela Kostea: If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagree, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right.

    That’s what this guy is banking on:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180

  158. Adela Kostea,Chicago,USA

    Hey, GM

    If you had as little or as much education as a 5th grader you would know that our planet`s climate depends on a variety of factors and none of them happens to be CO2.
    All living creatures breath in O2 and breath out CO2.
    Plants on the other hand are using CO2 in a process called photosynthesist,they suck up CO2 from the air and use it and then they eliminate O2.
    We humans do not have anything to do with changes in climate, there have been numerous changes both ways, long before humans inhabited the Earth.
    The planet is not warming and the planet is not cooling and whenever the climate is changing it is not because of us.
    Glaciers used to cover most of the Earth several times in the planet`s history and then they melted away before the internal combustion engine was invented, and before there was any human being on the planet to invent it.
    The whole climate change scare or fraud is being pushed for a few people to make a lot of money and to grab a lot of power.
    In 1978 when the “scientists” were saying the planet will soon freeze were proven wrong….
    In 1992 Al Gore started the global warming hysteria ,and he has been proven wrong ,for there was no such thing as global warming and the “scientific datas ” were cooked, by a few corrupt politicians and fake scientists.
    When they changed the name of their pet scare project to ” climate change” it was obvious that they did not want to commit to either warming or cooling and by “climate change” they wanted to cover all possible alternatives.
    Soon all these crooks will be looking for lawyers to defend them in the lawsuits that will no doubt be filed against them.
    Soon they will have to return all the money they have extorted based on manipulated data.

  159. Adela Kostea,Chicago,USA

    Watch and learn something for God`s sake !!!
    Do not cover your eyes and ears and go ” la,la,la,la,la,la,la, global warming is real,la,la,la,la,la,la,Al Gore is right,la,la,la,la…”
    Watch these genuine scientists who have nothing to gain or lose by expressing their honest opinions and listen to what they have to say!!

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html

  160. GM

    Hey, GM
    If you had as little or as much education as a 5th grader you would know that our planet`s climate depends on a variety of factors and none of them happens to be CO2.

    I assure you I have way more education than a 5th grader does, especially the kind of 5th grade you have here in the US. I am definitely not the one who needs educating about how the climate works here

    Watch and learn something for God`s sake !!!

    God is the big bearded elephant in the room. Because initially we made God in our image due to our anthropocentric arrogance, but now he is the justification for that same anthropocentric delusion, and the biggest impediment to recognizing that we are nothing special at all in this universe, we are not separate from nature, and we obey the same ecological rules that every other organism on this planet does.

    This has to be confronted directly, because as I have said hundreds of time, we are out of time. But the majority of scientists aren’t seeing it, even Dawkins wouldn’t go that far, either because he isn’t entirely aware of the seriousness of the overshoot, or because even he thinks that this would be too much. And in the same time the Peak Oil/Climate Change people are rarely coming from a biological background so in general they tend to be removed from the evolution/religion “controversy”. And the dot-connecting simply isn’t happening.

    This is why people like Mr. Mooney are so harmful – because in a time when a concerted effort by all scientists is needed to openly attack the whole set of extremely dangerous for our survival superstitions and delusions, they suggest that we should instead keep it to ourselves so that we don’t offend the ignorant mass while it is destroying the life support systems of the planet…

  161. GM

    Hey, GM
    If you had as little or as much education as a 5th grader you would know that our planet`s climate depends on a variety of factors and none of them happens to be CO2.

    I most definitely have way more education than a 5th grader, especially the kind of a 5th grade that you have here in the US…

    Watch and learn something for God’s sake !!!

    God is the big bearded elephant in the room. Initially we made God up in our image in our anthropocentric arrogance, but ever since then he has been the justification for that same anthropocentric delusion, and it has, is and will continue to be the single biggest impediment to realizing that we are not special, we are part of he ecosystem of the planet and we depend on it, and ultimately we obey the same laws of nature that all other organisms do. God is the source of most of the environmental denial, even though this is rarely discussed. On a fundamental level the debate is really about our place in the universe. Which means that as long as the majority of people keeps believing we are special and created by God, there will be no real understanding of the situation. And from this it follows that a major part of any meaningful change will be getting completely rid of religion as a serious factor in society.

    But very few people dare to go there, partly because the Peak Oil/Climate Change experts aren’t coming from biological background so they are somewhat removed from the front line of the battle with religion, and partly because people like Dawkins are either not completely aware of the overshoot (which based on his earlier writings I tend to think is not the case) or they think it would be too much to elevate the conversation to this level.

    Certainly, this understanding is rare even among atheistic scientists, but this does not change the set of necessary measures to be taken, which includes as a major part a consolidated message from scientists that religion has to go if we are to solve our sustainability problem. This is where people like Mr. Mooney are especially harmful with their attempts to turn things into exactly the opposite direction.

  162. John A. Jauregui

    This is MediaGate, not ClimateGate! Are you angry about this obvious RICO Act fraud and the national media’s complicity in the cover-up, misinformation, reframing and misdirection of the issue and the related “carbon derivatives” market Obama’s Administration is spinning up? Why pay for propaganda? Take responsibility and take action. STOP all donations to the political party(s) responsible for this fraud. STOP donations to all environmental groups which funded this Global Warming propaganda campaign with our money, especially The World Wildlife Fund. They have violated the public trust. KEEP donations local, close to home. MAKE donations to Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, the only politician to stand firmly against this obvious government/media coordinated information operation (propaganda) targeted at its own people. People that government leaders and employees are sworn to protect. WRITE your state and federal representatives demanding wall to wall investigations of government sponsored propaganda campaigns and demand indictments of those responsible. WRITE your state and federal Attorneys General demanding Al Gore and others conducting Global Warming/Climate Change racketeering and mail fraud operations be brought to justice, indicted, tried, convicted and jailed. Carbon is the stuff of life. He (Obama) who controls carbon, especially CO2, controls the world. Think of the consequences if you do nothing! For one, the UK is becoming the poster child for George Orwell’s “1984” and the US government’s sponsorship of this worldwide Global Warming propaganda campaign puts it in a class with the failed Soviet Union’s relentless violation of the basic human right to truthful government generated information. Given ClimateGate’s burgeoning revelations of outrageous government misconduct and massive covert misinformation, what are the chances that this Administration’s National Health Care sales campaign is anywhere near the truth?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdneX1djD

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

  163. To Bilbo #157: No, I have never read the whole IPCC report, and I think it would be a waste of time for anyone to read those reports in their entirety because they didn’t exactly belong to the best science (or good science) on Earth. They were scholastic exercises directed by railway engineers, attracting opportunist average scientists, and designed to distort all of climate science and create the impression that there was some science behind the predetermined political decisions.

    I would go far enough to say that almost everyone who has read the whole IPCC report, any of those 4 reports that the history allowed to be written before the bandwagon burned, is a quasi-religious fanatic in the AGW cult. And most of these people couldn’t understand the science, anyway.

    I have read many pages of the IPCC reports to know what’s roughly there, how it’s organized and cherry-picked, and how this big train of deception could have worked – from relatively OK average scientists at the bottom who wrote sometimes innocent things about science to the crooks at the top who were saying that the Himalayas would melt in 25 years and Amazonia would evaporate.

  164. Dear GM #127,

    the palms and other traditional species disappeared from the Easter Island mostly because of the cooling in the Little Ice Age. But even if the people over there played some role, they were just barbarians who didn’t really know how to efficiently use their environment. I don’t understand what’s the point of comparing them – a very special nation on a very special island – with the modern civilization, except for providing us with a thoroughly irrational ad hominem argument.

    I thought that the point of the environmentalists like you was to make the industrial nations behave like the pre-industrial tribes, i.e. to become more similar, not less similar, to the Easter Island tribes.

    Haiti was devastated by an earthquake. Do you understand that this is beyond people’s control? It had a very strong effect on them because they have lousy houses and infrastructure etc., and they just have those things because of poverty – which is also partly linked to their being former black slaves. None of these things has anything to do with the environmentalist ideology.

    “It still clearly says that most of the glaciers are shrinking.”

    Well, at every moment of the history, it is either true that “most” glaciers are shrinking, or “most” glaciers are advancing. It can never be exactly 50%. The opposite sign would clearly be declared equally worrisome by people like you. So if people were “thinking” like you, they would be worried about glaciers – and everything else – 100% of the time. Sensible people are not thinking in this way.

    “The information is available, but it isn’t available to the market. This is the problem. I would think that a professional scientist would make a distinction between the market and the phyisical reality, very strange abd very disturbing that you don’t.”

    The real problem is that there exist obsessed quasi-religious fanatics like you who think that they have been given some deep truth directly from deity. But this has nothing to do with the real situation. People like you actually know much less than the average market players, and it’s very important to avoid the lethal threat that people like you could actually start to influence the life of the society – something that has repeatedly happened in the dark ages of the history.

    There exist differences between the physical reality and the market’s opinion, but there exist much bigger differences between the physical reality and your opinions.

    Best wishes
    Lubos

  165. moptop

    Times of London:

    public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece

    Yep, climategate, nothing to see here, move along deniers….

  166. moptop

    GM,
    That doesn’t answer my question. Assuming that we run out of oil, what is the downside in your opinion?

    BTW, you can say that there are 96 days of oil found in Brazil, but that assumes the extremely unlikely condition of constant prices.

  167. How quickly you forget what your own magazine published a few years ago (an outright admission that the “warmers” are lying):
    Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47, (Steven Schneider is now Editor of Climate Change Journal)

  168. InMD

    Jon,
    You scoff at Planet Gore being on my reading list, I guess you did not notice Real Climate was there also. As per your ilk, you are cherry picking my reading list.

  169. Dick Wyckoff

    To GM and Jinchi:

    You appear to be the two most “populist” supporters of the AGW movement! Therefore I must address you two together. My backgroung is engineering and I have been trained enough to understand the mathematics that the AGW “Models” require. Therefore, with that being said, I must state that your various arguments against the others on this blog site are specious and almost boring. You have revealed NOTHING new and NOTHING unpublished to let me try to establish your bonafides!

    So, rant and rave all you want, you (and your ilk) can continue with your ad hominem responses. All I can say to you is that I’m glad that your opinion cannot affect my lifestyle, one whit! Soon you will be deligated to the dustbin of history. GOODBYE AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH!

  170. Here:

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down

    I demonstrate that the scientific community knew about the Glaciergate errors by their being exposed in a peer-reviewed journal in 2005, which was essentially the substance of a chapter from a book published in 2004 by an authority on the Himalayas. Syed Hasnain’s pronouncements are shown to be myths, and worse. The paper appeared in Himalayan Journal of Sciences, entitled

    “Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies.”

    In light of that, I find it almost certain that Pachauri and a lot of others knew that these were lies years before AR4 was published.

  171. GM

    BTW, you can say that there are 96 days of oil found in Brazil, but that assumes the extremely unlikely condition of constant prices.

    You can raise prices as much as you want, this is not going to create new oil out of nothing. And while it may make some previously uneconomic resources possible to develop, it will not change the net energy balance; and those presently uneconomic resources are uneconomic precisely because of that – even though price isn’t a direct indicator of EROEI, there is an inverse correlation between the two.

  172. bilbo

    No, I have never read the whole IPCC report, and I think it would be a waste of time for anyone to read those reports in their entirety

    So, in other words, you’ve never informed yourself on the very scientific claims you’re calling bullshit on. Predictable! I suppose you get your information on what climate science says based on how it’s been filtered and spun through secondhand skeptic blogs. Climate skepticism: never have so many people argued against something they readily admit they know nothing about.

    I would go far enough to say that almost everyone who has read the whole IPCC report, any of those 4 reports that the history allowed to be written before the bandwagon burned, is a quasi-religious fanatic in the AGW cult

    Interesting take. So if you’re trying to inform yourself on what the scientific opinion on the issue is, you’re in on the conspiracy? No wonder you’re so scared. That’s a great way to exclude yourself from being informed, I’ll add.

    Any other skeptics want to chip in? This one fit the mold perfectly.

  173. gillt

    Yes, engineers seem to have a soft spot in their brains for AGW denialism and creationism.

  174. moptop

    Oh cripes Gillt. Read his Wikipedia entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubos_motl I am sort of amazed he spent that much time on a troll of your caliber. He should charge you, but you would probably ask for your money back because none of it sunk in.

  175. John

    The science community allowed itself to be swallowed whole by the global warming farce.

    The 95% of the science community who have nothing to do with climate research simply assumed that a bureaucracy with a political agenda and a few PhD puppets feeding from a research grant trough wouldn’t lie to them. And the mainstream media certainly wouldn’t shriek about the end of the world all day long unless it was true, right?

    The science community is going to pay for that error in judgment for a very long, long time. If they could be wrong about so much for so long, what else might they be wrong about?

  176. Sorbet

    The word is “deniers” Bilbo. I think Mr. Motl went far beyond being a mere skeptic a while back.

  177. Steve

    @ bilbo 176 – And have you read the NIPCC report cover to cover?

    @ gillt 177 – At least AGW skeptics didn’t turn their brain off 30 year ago.

  178. GM

    I must state that your various arguments against the others on this blog site are specious and almost boring. You have revealed NOTHING new and NOTHING unpublished to let me try to establish your bonafides!

    Huh, what new do you expect us to say? If it wasn’t published, you would say it’s unreliable…

    Of course you don’t even trust the published results

  179. moptop

    GM, you are back but you still haven’t answered my question:

    What is your opinion of the downside of running out of oil?

  180. GM

    What is your opinion of the downside of running out of oil?

    What is the downside???? A short list:

    1. No oil means no food because right now what we’re really doing we are using the soil to convert oil and gas to food

    2. Long before we run out of food, the economy will collapse, because as we saw in 2008 high oil prices exposes the unsustainability of the whole financial house of cards we have built in a very short time.

    3. Running out of oil means the end of economic growth, because growth has primarily been accomplished by using more energy to produce more stuff for more people.

    4. Combine 1,2,3 and with people’s expectations that they will have more stuff tomorrow than they have today, and the inevitable conclusions is that, societal collapse will occur very rapidly as soon as it becomes clear that we passed the peak. As has happened previously with many civilizations, the ultimate cause for the collapse of which was unsustainabilty, but the proximal cause was the revolt of the people against the ruling class due to the impossibility to provide them with they wanted.

  181. gillt

    Moptop: the wiki link you sent of your friend, besides self-promotion, shows zero evidence of his climate science background.

  182. moptop

    Whatever gillt. I am conflicted about you, little troll. On the one hand, you can’t seem to understand a word anybody says to you that you don’t like, on the other, the more I get you to talk, the more ridiculous I make your side seem. Maybe I should call my oil company paymasters and ask them what to do in a situation like this? Naah! They are always work work work. Maybe I will just publicize this thread around the skeptical blogosphere where they always like a good belly laugh.

    Oh yeah, the paper came out today, and guess what? The models seem to very clearly overestimate the CO2 feedback, overestimate it by 5 times. So they admit they don’t understand clouds, and now they are shown not to understand CO2 feedbacks. What is left that they do understand?

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/463438a.html

    Oh, wait, is Nature a “denialist rag”? I can’t keep ‘em straight.

  183. bilbo

    Steve:

    Yes, I have read the NIPCC report cover to cover. Is that supposed to shock you?

    The NIPCC report was funded by the Heartland Institute, which is a strongly partisan (conservative) group a history of aligning itself with science denialism related directly to its funding sources. It has been heavily funded by Phillip-Morris and was engaged heavily in the denial of science surrounding tobacco-health risk links back during that fracas several years ago (even releasing an NIPCC-equivalent report trying to debunk all of the science surrounding tobacco.) Coincidentally (really, not coincidentally), it also received a crap-ton of funding from Exxon-Mobil just prior to the release of the NIPCC report. (After this was exposed, the Heartland Institute quickly refused to comment on funding sources from thereafrer). So, essentially, the NIPCC is a propaganda piece funded directly by oil companies through a third party.

    Regardless, most of the arguments in the NIPCC are made by citing random climate science papers and trying to debunk them with news reports from the media (which = not science). For example, one main argument that tries to debunk ocean acidification cites papers that confirm a role of CO2 emissions in ocean acidification, but then it tries to debunk all of those papers by citing a Sky News brief from Britain where some random guy expresses the simple opinion (not backed with data) that those papers are wrong. No reason is ever given.

    The remainder of the NIPCC is like a textbook of climate denialist claims: that climate scientists don’t account for water vapor in climate models (which they clearly do), that plants “eat” CO2 (“so why should we ever care about climate change??), and – towards the end of the report – that climate science is a massive global conspiracy. Very little in the report is backed by data and analyses….the first clue that something is a propaganda piece and not science-based.

    Lastly, the NIPCC is sketchy because not only does it claim that the IPCC reports have some holes – it claims that any and everything the IPCC has ever said about climate change is, in reality, the opposite case. Which, as anyone with a level head knows, is ridiculous. The NIPCC report is a shill document, clearly and openly funded by industry. If you’re going to claim the IPCC is not objective because it’s government based, calling the NIPCC report “independent” when it’s backed by industry interests is quite the hypocritical statement.

  184. Oh yeah, the paper came out today, and guess what? The models seem to very clearly overestimate the CO2 feedback, overestimate it by 5 times.

    Moptop, I wonder if you read your own links.

    Here’s the first sentence of the second paragraph of the paper that will overturn climate science:

    One impact of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a global warming at Earth’s surface

    So already we’ve shot down the first point in Jack’s rebuttal @46:

    1) Man-induced CO2 can not and will not be the driver of climate change because CO2 is a relatively weak, insignificant greenhouse gas.

    Let’s continue. First sentence, third paragraph:
    The two-way interactions between climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration lead to both negative and positive feedbacks.

    So there goes Jack’s point two

    2) CO2 lags temperature

    CO2 can lag temperature and vice versa.

    Middle of the 5th paragraph:

    over the past 200 years the perturbation of the carbon cycle by anthropogenic activities has been much larger, and the CO2 rise has been a major cause of global warming

    And there goes Jack’s point 6 and 7

    6) There’s no empirical evidence that man-induced CO2 is the driver of climate change (it can’t, see 1).
    7) AGW is totally falsified.

    And here goes your own point:

    Applying a formal and thorough investigation of the uncertainties, Frank and colleagues obtain a range for γ of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C. This range may seem large, and most current models have values within it.

    Given that about 50% of the carbon emitted by anthropogenic activities has remained in the atmosphere, this means that, in a warmer climate, we should not expect pleasant surprises in the form of more efficient uptake of carbon by oceans and land that would reduce the fraction of the anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere and limit the amplitude of future climate change

    Look into the details of the paper and you’ll notice that they’re doing climate modeling (haven’t skeptics been telling us that models are garbage) and they explicitly use temperature reconstructions including those of Mann and Briffa.

    That would be the “hockey stick” that Gary, Rod E., and Dave @39, @64 and @132 tell us has been repeatedly proven false.

    So far the paper you’ve lauded has managed to knock down at least 7 arguments from your own side.

  185. Brian Too

    My take? The political Right is out of power in the US and will do just about anything to get it back. They are shrill, angry, and generally unpleasant. This is ironic as this was the socio-cultural position of the political Left not so long ago.

    The Climate Change issue was just another political football as the Right attempt to make their case to the nation. The science never mattered, the academic scandal never mattered, the facts are unimportant.

    Witness Rush Limbaugh’s recent comment that he “hoped Obama would fail.” Rush stoutly defended himself (naturally). However as the nation’s leader and the Commander-In-Chief this is tantamount to saying he hoped the nation would fail.

    I can buy that a lot of the skeptics are rational, perhaps even non-political people who simply aren’t convinced. The problem is that they are aligning themselves with an unsavoury crew of politicos on the right that will say anything, deny anything, do anything, to get the right back into power. This is the same bunch that for the 8 years prior to the 2007 election, muzzled scientists, rewrote reports, and isolated anyone who didn’t toe the party line.

    The Right will drop you skeptics like a hot potato once they’ve got what they want. You’re a bunch of useful idiots to them. And no amount of “I wasn’t personally convinced, based on the evidence, ClimateGate, …” blah blah blah will matter one little bit as the great coastal cities of the world reel from devastating flooding in the coming century.

    Can I take down your names and send you the bill when it comes due? No, I didn’t think you’d be up for that.

  186. bilbo

    Something tells me that even though he was the one who cited it, Jinchi, moptop will try to spin it into a conspiratorial paper.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a liberal environmentalists’ conspiracy meeting to attend….

  187. bilbo

    Something tells me that even though he was the one who cited it, Jinchi, moptop will try to spin it into a conspiratorial paper.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a liberal environmentalists’ conspiracy meeting to attend….

  188. moptop

    You’re right, I only read the Nature Magazine’s Editor’s Summary and an interview of Dr Frank with Reuters. Somehow though, and since I don’t have access to the original, it remains a mystery, the Editor at Nature and Dr Frank himself seem to have come to different conclusions than you did.

    Climate change caused by mankind will release extra heat-trapping gases stored in nature into the atmosphere in a small spur to global warming, a study showed.

    But the knock-on effect of the additional carbon dioxide — stored in soils, plants and the oceans — on top of industrial emissions building up in the atmosphere will be less severe than suggested by some recent studies, they said.

    “We are confirming that the feedback exists and is positive. That’s bad news,” lead author David Frank of the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL said of the study in Thursday’s edition of the journal Nature.

    “But if we compare our results with some recent estimates (showing a bigger feedback effect) then it’s good news,” Frank, an American citizen, told Reuters of the report with other experts in Switzerland and Germany.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60Q51V20100127

    Oh, and the editor’s summary:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/edsumm/e100128-07.html

    climate warming tends to cause a net release of CO2, which in turn causes an amplification of warming. Estimates of the magnitude of this effect vary widely, leading to a wide range in global warming projections. Recent work suggested that the magnitude of this positive feedback might be about 40 parts per million by volume of CO2 per °C of warming. David Frank and colleagues use three Antarctic ice cores and a suite of climate reconstructions to show that the feedback is likely to be much smaller, with a median of only about 8 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C.

    For the record, I think you seriously misinterpret or more to the point overinterpret your limited quotes.

    “we should not expect pleasant surprises in the form of more efficient uptake of carbon by oceans and land that would reduce the fraction of the anthropogenic CO2 remaining in the atmosphere and limit the amplitude of future climate change”

    What he is saying here is that the CO2 feedback will not be negative. The oceans, and whatever, will not absorb more CO2 from the air with warming. I never said it would. I said that the feedback would be more weakly positive than is generaly claimed by alarmists.

    “Frank and colleagues obtain a range for γ of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C. ”

    Maybe we should look at the whole passage, instead of your cherry picked quote

    But the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle (termed γ), and thus of its positive feedback strength, is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections8, 9. Here we quantify the median γ as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C warming, with a likely range of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C. Sensitivity experiments exclude significant influence of pre-industrial land-use change on these estimates. Our results, based on the coupling of a probabilistic approach with an ensemble of proxy-based temperature reconstructions and pre-industrial CO2 data from three ice cores, provide robust constraints for γ on the policy-relevant multi-decadal to centennial timescales. By using an ensemble of >200,000 members, quantification of γ is not only improved, but also likelihoods can be assigned, thereby providing a benchmark for future model simulations. Although uncertainties do not at present allow exclusion of γ calculated from any of ten coupled carbon–climate models, we find that γ is about twice as likely to fall in the lowermost than in the uppermost quartile of their range. Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming.

    I am not sure where you got your bolded quote…

  189. moptop

    “the great coastal cities of the world reel from devastating flooding in the coming century.”

    Yeah yeah, I know, and I will burn in hell for having sex with my high school girlfriend too. “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God Gaia”

  190. moptop

    Not sure of the order of moderation, but I have a long and detailed response to Jinchi waiting there, probably due to the links.

  191. bilbo

    Yeah yeah, I know, and I will burn in hell for having sex with my high school girlfriend too. “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God Gaia”

    Isn’t ignorance great? When you don’t live in a city that’s already having to spend millions to build desalination facilities to try and keep up with the saltwater intrustion that’s already f$^king up your drinking water, when you don’t live in a city whose glacier (i.e. water source) is already about gone, and when insects that transmit human diseases are suddenly appearing in your region and brining new disease because the temperatures are more conducive to their survival than they were 10 years ago, you can just pretend everything’s peachy!!!!!

  192. Timothy

    The Hobbitses speaks the truth.

  193. CthulhuBob

    I’m shaking my head at the constant cries that AGW doesn’t exist. Cries of “PROOF! Give Me Proof!’ over and over from people that just don’t want to see the evidence before their very eyes. I happen to live in Vancouver, Canada and have for the past 20+ years. In the past decade I have watched as the weather here has slowly altered. And due to my work on the airfield here it is in my best interests to keep ahead of the weather and notice when it changes. From the airfield I have a beautiful view of the mountains to the north, in all my time in Van there has only been 2 times at this time of year that the mountains have been green and snowless … 1998 and this week. In 2 weeks time approximately 1 billion other people are going to see this too since we are hosting the Winter Olympics!

    Yes this was caused by an El Nino last summer, but in previous years that meant even heavier rains and lots and lots of snow on the mountains. This January has been unseasonably warm AND dry. This will be the first green Winter Olympics (and not in a good way)!

  194. CthulhuBob

    Almost forgot to mention that I understand its anecdotal evidence but that won’t stop the media or the public from having a field day with it.

  195. You’re right, I only read the Nature Magazine’s Editor’s Summary and an interview of Dr Frank with Reuters. Somehow though, and since I don’t have access to the original, it remains a mystery

    So let’s get this straight. We’re talking about what, according to you, is the paper that will overturn all the others published in the last 30 years and prove the skeptics right. Mentioned in the same breath with the work of Galileo and Einstein and compared to the “lone scientist” out of a thousand.

    Lubos “most important person at this blog” Motl had a preprint of the paper, but wasn’t interested enough to finish it before he got distracted by other things (like writing cryptic posts about it here).

    And you read a summary of a summary.

    I have to say that if I ever believe that a paper has been published that will overturn/revolutionize/transform a major branch of science, I’ll take the time to read it. And if I didn’t have a subscription to the journal or access to a library with one, I’d pay the single article fee to get it.

    You and Lubos didn’t read the study, because you don’t particularly care even about the science that Frank et al. have done.

  196. moptop

    “We’re talking about what, according to you, is the paper that will overturn all the others published in the last 30 years and prove the skeptics right. ”

    Where did I say that? The paper is pretty devastating to alarmists. Neither myself, nor, if you would care to visit his blog, Dr Lubos Motl, ever said that there was no such thing as AGW. These 6C in a century numbers are ridiculous though, and this paper shows they are unsupported.

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 »