ROSEN: Global warming hysteria

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Comments

April 25, 2008

5:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

rellimpank writes:

---bravo, Mike---hopefully some sense will return to the US of A before the lights start going out----
April 25, 2008

6:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Gene, you and your left-wing yo-yos can't address the issues so you attack the writer. Every day week paleo-Gene shows his ignorance when he opens his mouth.

By the Gene, are you aware that Al Gore's movie, "A Convenient Pile Of Excrement", falsified footage showing global warming? Reported yesterday on the news.

It is the height of stupity for humans to believe they are responsible for global warming. We can't compete with the forces of nature or the sun.
April 25, 2008

7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

First of all I'm not a scientist. So I'm not the one to make solid arguments about this issue. But I do know one thing and that is someone is wrong and someone is right. So lets look at what happens if someone is wrong:
1.If global warming is not man made but we still clean up our act and it may cost us unnecessary money and effort we will still have cleaned our planet and made things more energy efficient.
2.If it is man made and we do nothing, OOPS!!!!
I think one side is more costly. Don't you think?
April 25, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

irisman writes:

Mike is a man of many talents. Sometimes he's a raconteur, other times he's a political commentator,and on other occasions he's a sports writer. Well, today he's a scientist. Who would have guessed?
April 25, 2008

8:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

irisman writes:

Mike is a man of many talents. Sometimes he's a raconteur, other times he's a political commentator, and on other occasions he's a sports writer. Well, today he's a scientist. Who would have guessed?
April 25, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

dilligaf writes:

SASQUATCH:
So I take it until you get prove you want to continue trashing our planet with pollution and do nothing to help energy efficiency? I take it you have no off springs you care about.
April 25, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

This Global Warming canard is another wedge issue. The left caring for the environment sees a crisis, while the right sees a threat to their right to drive gas hogs.

Any issue that enhances these divisions is used by our mass media to continue this schism.

Enviromentalism is spawned from the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. WWF, Sierra Club, and other organizations were founded by members of the Bilderberg group. The aims are to reduce the world population by 80% or more. This mass mind control is designed to make it easy for the population to accept this as inevitable.

One fact is that the sun is hotter. Radiation from the sun has increased, and every planet is affected. Mars ice caps are shrinking faster than our own. Ice moons orbiting Saturn and Jupiter are becoming ocean moons. We don't see these on the news. But we see more and more subtle suggestions on our news channels that we must sacrifice to save the earth.

The focus should be on save the humans, we are indestructible from outside. Our destruction will come from within. The power elite that has existed since the dawn of civilization cannot destroy us, our petty divisions and the illusion of separation facilitate us to kill each other.
April 25, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

wdmll writes:

I have an article that on the surface, appears to have nothing to do with global warming hysteria. But in reality, because of global warming and cooling, it addresses the disparities between cultures and ethnicity due to climate change.

Why is modern man a Kaleidoscope and what are the consequences?

http://www.zimbio.com/Non-Politically...'s+Crisis/articles/9/modern+man+Kaleidoscope+consequences

The current proponents of Global Warming have their propaganda, high priest and congregation. The earth is in a state of change and change is constant, are we heading into global warming or global cooling? Maybe both as time goes by, in 4.5 billion years the earth has seen many changes. Science itself can at times be a dogma, if scientific debate is not allowed. Albert Einstein, at one time believed that the Universe was static, not expanding. It took observations by Edwin Hubble to change Einstein’s belief about the state of the Universe. Man has to be responsible for what impact he has on the planet when it comes to the environment, but the two fundamental constants are change and motion and only time will tell what is in store.
April 25, 2008

8:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

weatherguy writes:

1998 was hotter than normal because of a record El Nino. La Nina caused a cool winter this year, but we’re back, as NOAA says March was the warmest March on record. Also they reported 2007 had the sharpest increase in CO2 ever in one year and methane levele are up sharply. Sunspots are an 11 year cycle and has very little signficance to long term climate. Just one suspot ooooo, yikes. As an amateur astronomer, I’ve projected the image of the sun from my telescope several times in my life.

We had just one or no sunspots in 1995, 1984, 1973 etc. We’re heading to a solar maximum in 2012.

As a profesional meteorlogist I am now worried of the poistive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic Ocean with the frozen methane hydrates. They have warmed and could release massive amounts of methane gas. If that happens. I’m taking my family to Canada in a hurry.

Politicians and those that can’t disagree with their party line has really caused such confusion amongst the public nobody will be able to trust scientists again. Until it’s too late. Bye!
April 25, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Mike,

Gene's dry wit has tripped you, he may be more conservative than you. What do you think Gene?

So, you think your insulting, non-scientific way of discussing the issues is "addressing" them? Come on, you can do a lot better than that!

As for Al Gore, "Fat Albert" as Gene likes to say, he's a propagandist. Both sides have them, some more effective than others. Rosen is a propagandist as is Michael Moore and Rushbo! So what? It proves nothing!
April 25, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

bxwatso writes:

The USA consumes 3.8 trillion KWhrs of electricity per year, half from coal. Many people think coal power is bad because of CO2, pollution, acid rain, and mining accidents.

Because people want electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, solar and wind cannot practically replace more than a small fraction of coal demand.

The only non-polluting source of electricity that works anywhere and all day long is nuclear. To replace all of the USA's coal plants would take about 180 new nuclear plants across perhaps 45 site locations. The cost to build these plants would be $540Bln, requiring perhaps about half that amount in government subsidies and mandate costs.

The USA currently gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear, and nobody has ever been harmed by a modern plant (3 mile island included). France gets over 70% of its electricity from nulcar, so how hard can it be for the USA to move up to 50%?

If the enviros were serious about dramatically cutting the USA's CO2 emissions, they would push for such a plan. With a $540Bln plan, the USA could make a serious and substantial dent in its CO2 emissions in less than 10 years.

Of course, most enviros hate nuclear and keep pushing for expensive and impractical measures that are not based on sound engineering. What they really hate and have fought for decades is economic progress and individual choice. They want us to lead simpler (read poorer) lives and will use exaggeration, fear, and government coercion to get their way.
April 25, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

weatherguy writes:

"Mars ice caps are shrinking faster than our own. Ice moons orbiting Saturn and Jupiter are becoming ocean moons."

The ice caps on Mars are shrinking not because of the sun, but because of a massive dust storm that occurred a few years ago. When the dust settled the darker soils were more prominant on the surface. This decreased the albedo of the planet or reflectivity and caused the planet to warm. Go to NASA and search Mars Ice Caps for the article that started the whole Mars is warming too bit.

As far as icy moons of the outer planets becoming ocean planets is the most ridiculaous thing I've ever heard. There is no way to detect temperature changes of these bodies. When those moons do become liquid, it will because the sun turned into a red giant several billion years from now.

Reading these sites, I swear you guys probably got Cs and Ds in Science class.
April 25, 2008

8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

SQUATCH, SQUATCH, SQUATCH,

What amazes me is that you even survived the ice age. I do think that you left too much of your mind there. It keeps holding you back. You don't seem to understand that we have problems to solve in the here and now that will require a little imagination and flexibility. Darn it SQUATCH, you don't seem to have either! At least you have common sense, oops my mistake, that was another poster. Oh well at least you have a good sense of perspective.....hmm, no! wrong again! Maybe you can help me out a little bit Squatch. What exactly are the intellectual attributes you bring to the table? The best I've seen so far is that silly window test. Wait! I think I have it- a sense of humour, right? You are joking aren't you?
April 25, 2008

9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

bxwatso,

I'm a "dyed in the wool" environmentalist and I'm willing to accept additional nuclear energy, In fact I would prefer it to our dirty old coal fired plants. Safeguards and storage need to be improved and finalized. The biggest obstacle is the nimby factor which affects wind turbines as well as nuclear plants.

Please be careful in painting other people with a broad brush. There are many different kinds of environmentalists. I have made a profitable business that is based upon environmental principles. I am a raging capitalist and fiscal conservative. I see nothing but a celebration of the individual as we bring imagination to bear to solve our problems. With the right leadership we wouldn't need government interference in our affairs. Approaching the energy problem will require patriots on both sides of the issue. The conservatives will keep regulation and taxes to a minimum and watch out for business while the liberals will promote some new ideas and bring a little passion to the party. Together we can do some great things. Alternatively, we can point fingers, talk past each other and believe the propagandists on both sides and experience more grid lock.

The choice is ours to make and I hope we decide to come together and do this right!
April 25, 2008

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene,

I forgot about Mike Rosen. That's 2 in one week you've caught me on!

Hink's Daisy is OK, but not exceptional! A nice Rudbeckia, but there are a lot of nice Rudbeckias on the market. What do you think of it?
April 25, 2008

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

bxwatso - "The only non-polluting source of electricity that works anywhere and all day long is nuclear." - get your facts straight - hydro works day and night, as does CSP - Concentrating Solar Power. Yes, it works at night too. Look it up. And with storage (ever hear of this thing called a battery??) wind also works when the air is still. Nice try, no cigar.
April 25, 2008

9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

I guess pollution is a good thing. Wonder if Rosen believes Evolution is a hoax too? Jebus is coming any day so why not use up the planets resources? Even Bush has acknowledged global warming. Does that make him smarter than Rosen?
April 25, 2008

9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

oofda writes:

Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
Ask a dem, whats in it for me! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she...
April 25, 2008

9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

just when i think rosie couldn't get any more irrelevant
April 25, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

HolierThanThou writes:

I guess every newspaper needs to provide space for corporate-sponsored crackpots to spout nonsense and lies.
April 25, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Squatch,

You need to replace that old scratchy broken record of yours. The Republican CEOS of big agriculture stuck us with corn ethanol and soy diesel. Environmentalists are promoting bio-fuels made from waste cellulose, switch grass and even Algae.

I wouldn't mind that broken record of yours if you would at least get your facts straight.

Oh, and by the way, oil prices began trending sharply upward when Bush and the Republican congress took control nearly 8 years ago.
April 25, 2008

10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>More than 500 such skeptics convened in New York at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change last month.<<

And when they asked for all the scientists to gather for a group picture, 19 stepped up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/sci...

Is 500 so impressive? Consider that over 1,200 showed up at the The National Paranormal Conference:
http://alternativeapproaches.com/pnuk...

>>Climate change is a natural and age-old phenomenon on this planet recurring in roughly 1,500-year cycles and predating humanity by millions of years. Ice ages have come and gone.<<

Try 100,000 year cycles - and greenhouse gases are clearly linked as a major player in those cycles.

>>Compared to the overwhelming influence of the sun<<

Bunk - the sun's influence has been shown to be a very minor player in recent changes - in fact solar activity has been going in the >>opposite direction<< for over 20 years now,

>>and the impact of nonhuman influences on this planet - ocean-generated water vapor, animal life, vegetation, etc. - the notion that the puny contribution of mankind is the principal cause of climate change is a grand conceit.<<

In Rosen's poorly-informed opinion.
April 25, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

weatherguy

>>As a profesional meteorlogist I am now worried of the poistive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic Ocean with the frozen methane hydrates. They have warmed and could release massive amounts of methane gas. If that happens.<<

The hydrates occur all over the place, not just in the Artic Ocean. If a significant amount were released, it would be bad indeed, but there are two factors that keep them locked up - temperature and pressure. I suspect much of the hydrates are at pretty sigificant depth to where the pressure (from both the overlying ocean and the sediments they are buried in) is so high that that it would take more than a few degrees of warming for them to sublimate.
April 25, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Squatch,

So now you're seeing green bubbles!

You should wave a white flag!
April 25, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

JCRiggle writes:

Rosen gets a little carried away about denying man made global warming, but he does bring up some good points. For one, there is quite a bit of contradictory evidence both for and against CO2 causing global warming, but the science and the debate is far from being settled.

Now a lot of people like to make the point that if man made global warming theory ends up being true and we choose to do nothing about it now then the consequences are dire, so we have no choice but to do something about it.

However, there are a couple of points that people look past when coming to that conclusion. First, the climate is in constant change and will continue to fluctuate between hot and cold regardless of human intervention. So at some point in the future, even if humans completely cut carbon emissions the glaciers will melt, sea levels will rise and people living in low lying areas will be affected, so humanity will have to deal with that issue at some point.

Second, the cost of immediate action in cutting carbon emissions will be enormous. Government bureaucracies will be involved, the wrong technologies might be chosen (i.e. ethanol) and energy prices will soar (not to mention the dreaded "pinch" on the middle class). Rosen's main point, which is a good one, is lets all just settle down and let the market (albeit not a perfect one) judge the most efficient way of producing energy. Look, we are already on a path to a more sustainable energy future and as oil prices continue to rise, cleaner and more efficient energy sources like nuclear power or this hydrogen fusion technology that Rosen loves so much, will become more enticing. We don't need immediate action from the government to make this all better.
April 25, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

WeaveMan writes:

Just a few thoughts: If you have to believe in it, it’s not science. If you have to vote on it (i.e., consensus), it’s not science. Climate alarmism is based on poor climate modeling, not completed science. The UN is a political organization that does not ‘do’ science research. With global temperatures on a flat trend line since 1998 and carbon emissions on a linear positive slope in the same time frame, where’s the proof of anthropological global warming? I am looking beyond all the name calling, political scaremongering, media hyping, research grant chasing, and rent seeking while waiting for the proof. Waiting. And waiting. Going through life as a skeptic is like driving without your eyes closed.
April 25, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

CL....
"And when they asked for all the scientists to gather for a group picture, 19 stepped up."

There's some real logic.... if we see a photo of two people attending the Super Bowl, are you going to claim that no one else attended?

"Is 500 so impressive? Consider that over 1,200 showed up at the The National Paranormal Conference"

So when 30 attend the presentation of the Nobel Prize, does that mean you think the Paranormal Conference is more credible, afterall... more people attended it.

>>Climate change is a natural and age-old phenomenon on this planet recurring in roughly 1,500-year cycles and predating humanity by millions of years. Ice ages have come and gone.<<

"Try 100,000 year cycles - and greenhouse gases are clearly linked as a major player in those cycles."

Yeah... must have been all those SUV's that caused the last ice age.

>>Compared to the overwhelming influence of the sun<<

"Bunk - the sun's influence has been shown to be a very minor player in recent changes - in fact solar activity has been going in the >>opposite direction<< for over 20 years now,"

Yeah... everyone 'knows' that the sun has no relevance to temperature levels. That's why the temperature is identical at midnight as it is in the middle of the afternoon!!! Did you graduate from Bunk U?

>>and the impact of nonhuman influences on this planet - ocean-generated water vapor, animal life, vegetation, etc. - the notion that the puny contribution of mankind is the principal cause of climate change is a grand conceit.<<

"In Rosen's poorly-informed opinion."

As opposed to CL's poorly-informed opinion. What next? Claiming that the temperature declines over the past decade are due to global "warming"?
April 25, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

dilligaf wrote, "If global warming is not man made but we still clean up our act and it may cost us unnecessary money and effort we will still have cleaned our planet and made things more energy efficient."

But by wasting all that money and effort trying to control or stop things that are not pollutants, we end up with little left over to eliminate those that really are.

The effort to stop global warming isn't so much to "clean up our act" as to obtain power and a massive transfer of wealth.
April 25, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

The problem with Global Warming/Climate Change is that its proponents fail the "practical" test.

Simply put, the normal way to advance a change in human belief or behavior is to show a problem, offer a practical solution and seek additional information and solutions.

The GW debate begins with demands for change and impractical solutions that "grab for too much." Many demand a complete change of the marketplace or economy. Others demand punishment for activities that were approved and legal when they took place.

GW solutions don't exist. Improvements do exist and many are not merely practical, they are welcomed with open arms.

New forms of insulation that offer higher protection with smaller volumes are in demand for their practicality. Better technology creates solutions. For this to happen, the markets must be open and free to make combinations of the various technologies and products to create something new.

People also need to stop feeling that their way is the only way to deal with this issue. (I'm a major denier and proud of it.)

Insulation, good planning and doing things in within reason to change bad habits or wasteful ones.

Using less electricity, working at keeping things within reasonable limits and making sensible choices in our homes and work can make a difference. The key to all of this is to allow the individual to choose the level at which this will happen in his life. Coercion never creates a permanent change. It often creates a near permanent hostility to that which has been forced upon them though.

GW advocates have asked for everything and they, just like in the song, want it NOW. Practicality and free choice are the keys to meaningful change. Work to make the solutions practical and they will be embraced by enough people to make a change. Impose them and you create a permanent resentment that will eventually destroy any temporary progress.

The test for all of this is reason, not passion.
April 25, 2008

1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

p_meyers,

I like your concept of a " practical test". SASQUATCH has his infamous window test. I have something similar to yours that we might call a "common sense test". You and I had a conversation on Earth Day which I enjoyed.

I am an environmentalist but also a fiscal conservative and above all a realist. The environmentalism comes originally from my farming family, the fiscal conservatism from my years in business and my realism from the wisdom that sometimes comes with age.

My own observations and my scientific background lead me to believe in Global Warming, but I still respect those who don't.

I don't care why people embrace efficiencies and conservation. In my opinion, it's all good and should make sense to most people regardless of politics.

Many proponents of GM are young and ardent. Maybe that's appropriate because they will be the most affected. I am a member of the old guard. I've fought my share of battles and now I prefer compromise, working agreements, diplomacy and most of all the discussion that brings us to these things.

I look forward to more conversations. Its nice to see someone on the web with a similar approach to the issue.
April 25, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Gonzopozo writes:

News flash - another strict conservative in denial about Global Warming. 500 "growing" scientists? Wow, that has to be at least .01% of the scientific community. Let's just ignore it is happening and send another Billion to Iraq and another one to Exxon-Mobil. I'll buy an air conditioner with my whopping $700 or maybe a bag of rice.
April 25, 2008

2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Mike Rosen thinks it's the height of arrogance to think that human activities alter global climate. I think it's the height of arrogance to think we have no effect whatsoever. Although such an attitude allows people to buy 5,000 sq. ft. centrally air-conditioned houses and oversized SUVs with gas mileage that sucks. Gallons per mile, anyone?
We put increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and we destroy the rain forests, a major source of CO2 elimination. We have billions of cattle burping a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
Mike is using false thinking. He sees the overall global picture and wonders how our output can possibly influence anything.
Suppose you have an extremely delicate balance scale with 100 lbs on each side. Add one ounce to one side, and the scale will tilt. Mike Rosen would argue that that teeny ounce couldn't have caused the scale to tilt. Why someone must be lifting the table!
Earth's natural systems balanced over a long period of time. We are dumping huge amounts of CO2 into that system, and the balance is starting to tilt. Screaming that human beings are puny creaures doesn't prove anything. There are more than 6 billion of us. We have a global impact.
April 25, 2008

2:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

bassman writes:

The cost of the U.S complying with Kyoto could provide safe drinking water for the entire planet according to a book "The Skeptical Environmetalist". Which course is going to save more lives? Which course will waste trillions of dollars? Which course will subject us to enviro-fascism?
April 25, 2008

2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Did you know that they have a coal technology that is very clean, almost as clean as natural gas, although almost as expensive too. There are actually a couple of them, pulverized and gasified. Considering that the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of the coal world, all the energy we need is underneath our surface. The lib politicians and the EPA are still holding back these technologies from being implemented and utilized.

On another note, it has been shown that increased heat increases the aggregate CO2 levels which means, yes, heat is more likely the cause of the CO2 increases than the other way around.

Furthermore, approximately thirty-five years ago, the libs were panicking America about global cooling. The temps are cyclical; global warming is just another insidious ploy by the Left to lead us further down the road toward socialism, which (have I mentioned yet?) doesn't work.
April 25, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Hey, peterbi, did you know that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gasses? And, did you know, that unless you are a really weird mutant, you exhale that horrible greenhouse gas. In theory, we could help eliminate global warming by killing you. :)
April 25, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

But, spencerr, you're just "dreaming" that aren't you?
April 25, 2008

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

after all, no conservative has ever harmed anyone anywhere.
April 25, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

weatherguy wrote, "The ice caps on Mars are shrinking not because of the sun, but because of a massive dust storm that occurred a few years ago."

But dust storms can't just happen spontaneously. So, what could drive those storms but, ultimately, the sun? And if not the sun, what would cause those storms to be any more massive a few years ago than in any other year?
April 25, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -

"Did you know that they have a coal technology that is very clean, almost as clean as natural gas, although almost as expensive too."

Yes - but by clean you mean less things like sulfates and mercury. The basic combustion still forms CO2 as an end product, so you would still need to remove the CO2 post-combustion somehow.

Or go nuclear :)

>>On another note, it has been shown that increased heat increases the aggregate CO2 levels which means,
yes, heat is more likely the cause of the CO2 increases than the other way around.<<

No, we know that heat is not the cause of recent CO2 increases for several reasons :
1) Increases in CO2 levels have been preceding temperature increases
2) The current level of CO2 is much higher now than when temperatures where at similar levels in the past
3) The ratio of carbon isotopes (C12, C13 & C14) indicate that a significant percentage of the carbon in the atmosphere originated as fossil fuel. For example, C14 has a half life of 5,730 years so coal, oil and gas have practically no C14. Since C14 gets replenished in the atmosphere at a pretty steady rate (cosmic rays smacking nitrogen atoms), adding C14 depleted carbon to the atmosphere reduces the ratio of C14.

In other words, we can tell that we are responsible for the increased CO2 levels.
April 25, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

bxwatso writes:

SheikYurBooty:

I am sorry to report that hydro does not work anywhere. It only works where there is a strong river and a place to build a dam. That should be obvious!

If you didn't know, it is impossible to transmit AC electricity over very long distances. This is because of the phase distorting charactaristic of transmission lines. Therefore, it is impractical to build a hydro plant in UT or AZ to power Denver.

There is no economically feasible system for the storage of solar power. It is possible to store molten sodium, but that is experimental at best.

The facts ARE straight. At best, "alternative" energies can provide 10% of our electricity needs. That is based on a fairly old IEEE study on the matter.

As further proof that wind and solar can't provide much of our energy needs, look to Xcel's plan to comply with the new law on the subject. The compliance comes primarily from the replacement of coal plants with gas plants (and billions in higher energy bills for homeowners)
April 25, 2008

4:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

bxwatso writes:

greenleaf

Fair enough, but I did say "most enviros." Why don't you check out http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm ? They have something to say on the topic. A handfull of 1970's "no nuke" people have changed their minds.
April 25, 2008

5:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

RainbowWarrior writes:

Too bad the world is not as simple and as black and white as people like Mike Rossen would like us believe. And of coarse belive only what they want us to believe because that's what they believe. There have been some words of wisdom spoken here, but not many, and certainly not by little Mike.

Not too far in the future the truth will be known, a tipping point will be reached or never obtained and then those on one side of this issue or the other will eat their crow.

I have followed environmental issues for many years now, and it seems credit is never given for the successful ideas and changes that have come about, many from conservatives and republicans, many that were just common sense and a better way of doing things and others that only came about because people were inspired by the success and postive contributions in the past created by the environmental movement from both sides of the isles. It takes all kinds of people to make a world... most of us are moderates, and then we have extremist like Mike, who stereo type and push everything into political catagories (a whopping 2 left/right) and paint the world with huge brush strokes to make a point. I would relate it to collective barginning, you know, ask for twice as much as you expect to receive... or maybe it's more like over kill, if it only takes 100 nukes to turn the planet into glass, let's create and store 30,000!

There is common ground and it can be found were there are open minds and open hearts. Those like Mike and others here that continue to promote a divide and conquere mentality do more harm than good.

United we should stand, because divided we will fall...

I heard mention of white flags, so be it if we can meet in the middle and then move in a common direction for the benefit of the majority of the people.

I wish the extremist fring from both sides would just shut up and let the rest of us figure these problems out with less noise in the room.
April 25, 2008

6:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

RainbowWarrior,

I couldn't agree more my friend. both sides need to lay down their "weapons" and meet on neutral ground. Well said!
April 25, 2008

6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

jconder45 writes:

Irisman- the funny thing is, he sucks at all of them.
April 25, 2008

9:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

kathyM writes:

WeaveMan said, "If you have to believe in it, it’s not science. If you have to vote on it (i.e., consensus), it’s not science." WELL SAID! THANK YOU!
April 25, 2008

11:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

farmboy writes:

weatherguy wrote, "I am now worried of the poistive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic Ocean with the frozen methane hydrates. They have warmed and could release massive amounts of methane gas. If that happens. I’m taking my family to Canada in a hurry."

If the methane hydrates in the Arctic Ocean are that big a threat, why would you move your family to Canada, a place that's *closer* to them?
April 26, 2008

12:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Quagmate writes:

Try the optimist point of view. Read up on and educate yourself on Hydrogen and you will find a world of not only of hope but reality. We are arguing in a vacuum. Please understand that in ten years Hydrogen will power most vehicles.

Infrastructure in the key. BMW, Toyota, GM all have vehicles today that can run on H. London will be running on H in two years.

Alarmists are always with us. The long view is the key. Today everyone talks about how Social Security will go bankrupt when the Baby Boomers retire… In ten years more then 70% of the Baby Boomer will be dead. It is a natural cycle.

Please people, oil will become no more than a lubricant in the 10 years. The US is leading the way. While other talk, H will become $3 a kilo and your car you are driving today will convert. Progress IS progress and soon what man thought impossible (flight, the moon, ect.) will become reality.

While we fling arrows at each other, the solution is already at hand.

Please I implore you to read.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...
April 26, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

"Also they reported 2007 had the sharpest increase in CO2 ever in one year and methane levele are up sharply." - weatherguy

If we had a sharp increase in CO2 levels in 2007, why did we have such a dramatic drop in temperatures in the same year? Is it all La Nina's fault?
April 26, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

rickg19611 -
>>"And when they asked for all the scientists to gather for a group picture, 19 stepped up."

There's some real logic.... if we see a photo of two people attending the Super Bowl, are you going to claim that no one else attended?

"Is 500 so impressive? Consider that over 1,200 showed up at the The National Paranormal Conference"

So when 30 attend the presentation of the Nobel Prize, does that mean you think the Paranormal Conference is more credible, afterall... more people attended it. <<

Rosen was the one trying to make it sound like this was some huge event, I was just putting some perspective on it.

Given all the hype this was given and the supposed huge numbers of scientists who oppose AGW this is all they could come up with? The comparison to the Paranormal Conference was to illustrate that something as obscure as that had a higher draw. Here's another comparison - the 2007 annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union had an attendance of over >>14 thousand<<. I have a group photo with about 9,000 in it from when I attended several years ago.

Point being, their numbers are simply pathetic.

>>"Try 100,000 year cycles - and greenhouse gases are clearly linked as a major player in those cycles."

Yeah... must have been all those SUV's that caused the last ice age.<<

Obviously not, you're either being silly or just ignorant. The 100,000 year cycle is tied to cyclical changes in the earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles, but these cycles are too weak to explain the magnitude (which was an early criticism of Milankovitch cycles) and pattern of the changes - here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xc...
is what an ice age cycle looks like - the warming phase occurs much faster than the cooling phase, a pattern that would not be caused by shifting the earth's orbit. That pattern is matched by the level of greenhouse gases - in fact the pattern can not be explained unless you factor in the greenhouse gas levels.

So there's the connection of greenhouse gasses to the ice age cycles - and no, it wasn't SUVs.

Continued in next post
April 26, 2008

9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

rickg19611 (cont)-
>>"Bunk - the sun's influence has been shown to be a very minor player in recent changes - in fact solar activity has been going in the >>opposite direction<< for over 20 years now,"

Yeah... everyone 'knows' that the sun has no relevance to temperature levels. That's why the temperature is identical at midnight as it is in the middle of the afternoon!!! Did you graduate from Bunk U?<<

The sun's output doesn't change between midnight and afternoon, so your argument is grossly flawed, plus I never said the sun had no relevance to temperature levels but that it was a minor player in recent changes. Is your position so weak that you can't respond to what I actually wrote?

Consider what I wrote above - there are 2 patterns to past ice ages - the 100,000 year period that matches Milankovitch cycles and a pattern of relatively rapid warming and slow cooling. Since you are so certain the sun is the cause, then I'm sure you will tell us about what solar change coincides not only with the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle AND the pattern of change within each cycle.

Secondly, solar output has been studied by several methods, including direct measurements by satellites for the last few decades and they all show that while there is variation, it is insufficient to account for the magnitude of the changes, in fact solar changes for the last 20 years or so have been going in the >>wrong<< direction.

>>What next? Claiming that the temperature declines over the past decade are due to global "warming"?<<

Temperatures haven't declined over the past decade. Here's the temperature changes over the last decade with the trend range within 95% statistical probability:

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/60...

>>As opposed to CL's poorly-informed opinion. <<

I've supported my "opinion" with much more information than Rosen has.
April 26, 2008

10:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

John II -

>>"Also they reported 2007 had the sharpest increase in CO2 ever in one year and methane levele are up sharply." - weatherguy

If we had a sharp increase in CO2 levels in 2007, why did we have such a dramatic drop in temperatures in the same year? Is it all La Nina's fault?<<

Didn't you say you lacked vigor debating this subject?

La Nina only impacted a few months, not the whole year. Remember this?

"2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century. "
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new...
April 26, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

CL,

I do lack vigor in debating this subject. But, I was curious so I asked. I had a feeling you were going to refer me to that figure. Did temps decline in 2007? Also, I have another question. Why do some charts so that temps are at 1998 levels?
April 26, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Achilles writes:

Never mind my last question about 1998.
April 26, 2008

9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jacka writes:

high cost new energy economy - all due to no new refining capacity, less drilling, no more coal fired plants, no nuclear, all corn based ethanol..............
April 27, 2008

6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Most of what I read above is just mudslinging nonsense and usually on the part of those who think the planet is in peril. It's a good job its not as I wouldn't want these guys to be the ones saving us! There is no direct evidence to link mankind with the last century's modest warming trend of .5 degrees C. It takes a lot more than .5 degrees to melt an ice cap that is more vast than a lot of you can imagine. Minus fifty is the average temperature in the east antarctic region which, incidently is currently showing a growth of ice mass. Those who are panicing and tightening their belt and braces need to look right to the source of the information/science and decide for themselves what the reality is. Anyone with a modicum of science background can see through what is rigorous science and what is not. Loud assertion from ignorant people does not make it true. The arguments above involve those who say such things as "if you want to go trashing the planet in the same old way..." etc. This is not the issue. The claim is that CO2 from industrialised nations is causing a positive feedback loop and will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This has not been shown to be true in real world data. Computer models use this scenario because they do not know what mechanism counters this so called positive feedback. It is now being shown in more than one study and more recently by Roy Spencer that clouds have a strong negative feedback effect. Furthermore it is already known that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example in equal amounts, will not cause a equal amount of temperature change IE if you add all the CO2 you can find in the world there is a modest limit to the amount of warming that can be achieved by this alone. CO2 lags temperature change in the ice core data, a fact very rarely mentioned and plainly ignored by Al Gore. Pollution and care for the environment is not the same issue. It has been highjacked by ignorant greens and knowingly by certain politicians who have found it a great vehicle, saying "Vote for me and I'll save the world." When you hear him speak, read that as, "Vote for me or buy my carbon offsets and I'll RULE the world." He is a modern day wolf in sheeps clothing. Those who believe him are, I am sad to say, being taken in. Don't believe me, look into the sources of this science and you will see clearly what is likely to be going on here. GREEN IS THE NEW RED!
April 27, 2008

8:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

John_II

>>But, I was curious so I asked<<

You asked a loaded question based on a faulty premise, like "have you stopped beating your wife yet"

>>Did temps decline in 2007?<<

It's in the link.

>>Why do some charts so that temps are at 1998 levels?<<

I don't understand your question.

If you mean why some do and some don't, that would be because some show different things like land surface or ocean surface temperatures and some use different data sets and/or different methods of combining the data points.

If you mean doesn't that indicate no increase since 1998, that's because 1998 is a single data point and not a level. Here's the last 15 years GISS temperature anomalies:

1992 - .12
1993 - .14
1994 - .24
1995 - .38
1996 - .30
1997 - .40
1998 - .57
1999 - .33
2000 - .33
2001 - .48
2002 - .56
2003 - .55
2004 - .49
2005 - .62
2006 - .54
2007 - .57

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

This is a good discussion of why trying to discern trends from short periods is flawed. It's a pro-AGW site, but it's one of the best explanations I've seen plus the chart at the beginning puts 1998 into perspective.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...

If you really want to get into the nuts & bolts of statistical sampling, this wikipedia article is a decent start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
April 27, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy -

>>There is no direct evidence to link mankind with the last century's modest warming trend of .5 degrees C.<<

According to who? BTW, it's more like 1 degree C but hey, what's being off by 100%?

>>Those who are panicing and tightening their belt and braces need to look right to the source of the information/science<<

Like the source saying .5 degrees C?

>>The arguments above involve those who say such things as "if you want to go trashing the planet in the same old way..." etc.<<

I made "arguments above" where did I write that?

>>The claim is that CO2 from industrialised nations is causing a positive feedback loop and will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This has not been shown to be true in real world data. Computer models use this scenario because they do not know what mechanism counters this so called positive feedback.<<

Malarkey. See my earlier post about the role of greenhouse gasses and past ice ages and the link below.

>>It is now being shown in more than one study and more recently by Roy Spencer that clouds have a strong negative feedback effect.<<

Wow that's really convincing. There most certainly are negative feedbacks as well as positive feedbacks, in fact you can't avoid feedbacks. The big question though is what feedbacks are in play and their magnitude. Interesting how you conveniently try and downplay one and drum up another with no explanation as to why.

>>CO2 lags temperature change in the ice core data, a fact very rarely mentioned and plainly ignored by Al Gore.<<

I don't know about Gore, but AGW theory doesn't say CO2 should lead temperature in the ice cores - a fact commonly ignored by AGW skeptics. That fact is laid out in this work, which is considered to lay out the groundwork of current AGW theory:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1...

>>Loud assertion from ignorant people does not make it true.<<

True, I'd say you made your point quite well, although probably not in the way you thought you thought you did.
April 27, 2008

5:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

.5 degrees C is the amount under discussion by all parties, some say .6 degrees. My sources are the four main GMT outlets which all paties rely on. I do not as you would like to think have my own separate data set! It is you who are misinformed.
Show me the data that proves that human kind is responsible for this poultry amount of warming that is well within natural variability. I would be interested to see the graph and the data source. The positive feedback loop I speak of is the one proposed by AGW alarmists. This trend is not showing up in observed data. The positive feedback I spoke of is a hypothesis and that is all. General circulation models are used to run different scenarios in order to attempt to prove this hypothesis. They cannot thus far project acurately for ten years let alone one humdred.
The CO2 lag is 800 years! You need to get around that if you're going to prove a cause and effect relationship using such data. The CO2/temperature graph for the last 100 years (which is the time period that most are concerned with) there is no meaningful correlation. Anyone can see this.
Your loud assertion is ignorant and unhelpful if you want to excite people into changing their lives for the "planetary emmergency". He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.
April 27, 2008

6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

joy do you believe that nearly every single field appropriate using peer-reviewed info to come up with the nearly universally held consensus on this subject are part of one big conspiracy or are you simply refusing to acknoweldge said consensus?
April 27, 2008

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

LFC writes:

dilligaf -

I think you make a great point.

"1.If global warming is not man made but we still clean up our act and it may cost us unnecessary money and effort we will still have cleaned our planet and made things more energy efficient.
2.If it is man made and we do nothing, OOPS!!!!
I think one side is more costly. Don't you think?"

I actually agree with this. What I don't agree with is giving those IPCC scientist tillions of dollars to do their research anymore. I say knock their funding down a trillion or so and get those scientist working on alternative forms of energy that will work. Eventually, we will run out of oil and coal. When I don't know I am no scientist.

I know we have free speech, so we can't put a sock in Al Gores mouth. I am all for finding alternate source of fuel for this simple reason--It sucks to run in Denver with the Brown Cloud. I know (without a doubt) that the stuff that comes out of a tail pipe kills. Just look at the amount of people that have killed themselves in their garages with the automobile.

The weather is going to change, we can't control that. We can control the air that we breath...well atleast what we put into the air. Those IPCC scientist are going to keep putting out their warnings and studies, simply because they know were the money is coming from. I am sure they make alot of money to put food on their tables. they don't want that to just disappear. So as they continue to study they will adjust their finding to keep the funding (did someone say Trillions?) to justify their existence. Can't say I blame them. We all want to make a buck.
April 27, 2008

7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

LFC writes:

Greenleaf and Sasquatch

Come on guys. I can't believe you guys argue about who has made the price of fuel/gas go up. It isn't either party's fault. It is the way it is. Demand has increased a lot since Clinton, it is harder to get, there are more rules in what additives must be put in for each state. It is going to keep going up. Regardless of who gets in office next year. Just deal with it and stop pointing fingers at the parties. That is one thing that is not their fault.
April 27, 2008

9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LFC,

I've been following Joy and CL, a fascinating contrast don't you think?

Please don't worry about Squatch and I, we are comic relief. He is my straight man. He gives me lots of opportunities, and heaven help me, I just can't resist.

When I'm being serious,I too remind people to stop pointing fingers as we are all in this together and need to work toward solutions not division.

Having said that, do watch Squatch, he is too funny!
April 28, 2008

10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" It isn't either party's fault. It is the way it is"

this isn't quite necessarily true...although i hear rosen, rush and o'reilly trying the same kind of rhetoric on the masses...

the uncomfortable truth (for the conservatives anyway) is that in addition to increase demand, many other factors have caused gas prices to skyrocket. among those factors are republican policy stances...including those that have destabilized the middle east.
April 28, 2008

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy -
>>.5 degrees C is the amount under discussion by all parties, some say .6 degrees. My sources are the four main GMT outlets which all paties rely on. I do not as you would like to think have my own separate data set! It is you who are misinformed.<<

No, I don't have my own data set - you can look at the GISS data yourself at the link I gave John_II in my 8:20 post - here it is again:

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

There you will see the anomaly for 1907 is -0.39 C and is 0.59 C for 2007 - a difference of 0.98 C - much closer to 1 degree C than .5.

So there it is, you don't have to take my word for it. Do you have a link to your "main GMT outlets" showing otherwise?

>>Show me the data that proves that human kind is responsible for this poultry amount of warming that is well within natural variability.<<

Is that chicken or turkey warming? I already provided you a link to the work that laid the basis to AGW theory, but you obviously ignored it. Here's a simpler one for you -

Temperatures when only natural factors are accounted for:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/imag...

Temperatures with natural and human caused factors accounted for:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/imag...

It's only with both human and natural factors can the temperature changes be accounted for.

>>The ***positive feedback*** I spoke of is a hypothesis and that is all. General circulation models are used to run different scenarios in order to attempt to prove this hypothesis. They cannot thus far project acurately for ten years let alone one humdred.<<

Actually you wrote "one study and more recently by Roy Spencer that clouds have a strong ***negative feedback***"

Negative or positive - which is it?

>>The CO2 lag is 800 years! You need to get around that if you're going to prove a cause and effect relationship using such data.<<

I specifically addressed this point, but apparently you ignored it. Again, see the work:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1...
It specifically says:
"... whether the temperature changes lead or lag the changes in CO2 or CH4 concentrations is not relevant for the study of fast feedbacks."
and explains why.

I strongly suggest you read it in order to get at least a basic understanding of GW theory. After that, if you have any specific points we can discuss those.

>>Your loud assertion is ignorant and unhelpful if you want to excite people..."

Interesting - I've provided explanations and links supporting my positions (Maybe they would be helpful if you read them) while you have provided none and the only time I used an exclamation point is when I have quoted you.

>>... into changing their lives for the "planetary emmergency".<<

Actually, I want to change people's lives as little as possible, which is why I strongly support developing nuclear power, for example.
April 28, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

CL, you are on the same wrong page as Al Gore with regard to the relationship with CO2 and heat. See this CNN clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7.... Also, there are CO2 sequestering technologies that trap it underground, where algae processes it back into Oxygen. Global warming is bunk.
April 28, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Al Gore's film, for which he won a nobel prize, is propaganda, all the way to the sci-fi footage from "the day after tomorrow" showing an ice shelf falling into the ocean, a scene that he used in his movie.

Furthermore, even if man-made GW is real, there are two ways to deal with it; hamper humanity, or ignore it. In hampering it, we slow down our economic activity, maybe control the population, force very expensive green energy solutions, basically let radical Leftists take over and control our lives. We will then live in a perpetual recession...or we can go with the dissenting half of the scientists' point-of-view and just ignore it. I vote for the latter. Their argument is valid if ignored. The models don't work, and the empirical evidence is both statistically insignificant and explained by natural cycles.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to just nuke the Chinese, cutting one plus billion people from the worldwide population and all of their dirty dirty industrial practices.
April 28, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to pause and reflect.”
Mark Twain
“There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.”
Duk De La Rochefoucauld French writer and moralist (1613-1680)
At the end of my post are some quotes I gathered along the way, as you might not want to read my words. There’s no quick answer to the poster who questions my judgement on the so called consensus. He is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Belief requires faith which is religion. Consensus is the basis of democracy which is politics. Conspiracy is too strong a word, and I feel the term opportunistic is more fitting with regard to the global warming alarm. As any salesman will tell you emotion sells and is one of the most powerful tools that anyone (in this case substitute politician or bad scientist) can use to sway opinion. I see nothing inherently unusual in this as I believe we all use this powerful tool throughout our lives, even toddlers use it to get attention. It’s just that some turn it into a force to rule or gain materially on a grand scale. Recently a British high court judge ruled that any school that shows Al Gore’s movie without pointing out the numerous flaws and untruths will be in breach of the education act on indoctrination. Furthermore he is forbidden from peddling his carbon offset business in this country, as he will breach our racketeering laws! Ring any alarm bells anyone? By the way Carbon monoxide is a deadly gas not to be confused with carbon dioxide which is plant food. CO2 is toxic at 6000 parts per million. Plants thrive at around 1000 parts per million, a fact illustrated by commercial greenhouses who use high concentrations of CO2 thus improving yield. Catalytic converters fitted into all european vehicles now capture and recirculate amongst other gasses carbon-monoxide. Particulates and other toxic substances are often confused with CO2. The hose pipe thing won’t work if your car has a fully functioning converter.
April 28, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

In the matter of the question about the thousands of millions of peer reviewed research that supports the hypothesis of manmade global warming:
We must look at the source of the phenomenon. It first began for this country with Margaret Thatcher in the 80’s who wanted to push nuclear power for Britain as she was closing coal pits in large numbers and did not want to rely on the middle east as a main source of oil. She commissioned the Royal society to, with massive funding, prove a link between greenhouse gasses produced by industry and warming of the planet to the detriment of the environment. Of course once the money is there then the studies flow forth. Including such topics as nut gathering behaviour in squirrels with reference to global warming. One can imagine that the subject found it’s way to the lips of anyone who otherwise would not be guaranteed funding. Again, I see nothing evil in this as any scientist who wants funding for their particular field will no doubt be tempted to use whatever lever will help their research. The British government formed a think tank which eventually joined or helped form the IPCC which is an international body. This body functions on the same basis as Maggie’s think tank but on a bigger scale. The premise is to uphold the notion that mankind is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century due to greenhouse gasses. The IPCC is split into four working groups, each dealing with different aspects; only one group is concerned with the atmospheric science and physics component; but all with the same basic supposition. It is often said that there are thousands of studies. Many of the studies quoted are in fact, model runs. This is to say that each time a group of scientists changes a set of parameters and runs it through the computer it counts as another “study”. Model Scenarios have been misrepresented as predictions by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore.
There are many scientists who were lead authors or reviewers who have stated their concern about the process or even have left in disgust at the corruption of the peer review process which is not carried out in good faith within it’s walls. Those reviewing papers are often those who were involved in the study. You couldn’t make this stuff up!
April 28, 2008

12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Read Chris Landsea’s “brutally honest” account of his experience with the IPCC before he left. MIT’s professor emanuel has recently stated that he would now reconsider his long held opinion that tornadoes and hurricane intensity and number would increase in a warmer world. Read Paul Reiter’s account of the misinformation and bad science that went on while he worked for the IPCC as a lead expert in insect born disease. He wrote a letter to parliament and describes much of what went on. He threatened legal action before they finally removed his name from their “list”. Richard Lindzen was a lead author and subsequently a reviewer and it is widely known what he thinks of the so called settled science! John Christy’s temperature record is used as a fair model…see his latest data up to March of this year about the global mean temperature. Listen to his lecture on line: Google “what do the numbers say john Christy”. The observed data is not in agreement with the AGW hypothesis. For those who like to bash deniers then there a few individuals that do this at the end of the lecture with impunity. Read “Global Warming’s dirty secret by Professor Patrick Michaels;
The fact is that there are many “peer reviewed” papers written in journals which do not support this view of human induced climate catastrophe. Have a look at Anthony Watt’s work on weather stations throughout America which, as it turns out give a warming bias due to bad siting and faulty algorithms used to adjust the data. They have had a significant victory in helping to solve this problem only this week! (They are volunteers made up of many retired meteorologists and others) See Icecap for useful articles and links which include papers as they emerge from around the world, refuting the polemic. Lastly, here are some quotes which, I think some will find revealing if you’re still awake.

“Climate change is a reality and science confirms that human activity is heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country. The phenomenon of catastrophic climate change. It seems that mere climate change was not going to be bad enough and so it now must be catastrophic to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term and its bedfellow qualifiers, chaotic, irreversible, rapid has altered the public discourse around climate change. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we the professional climate scientists who are now the catastrophe sceptics! How the wheel turns!
April 28, 2008

12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

“Why is it not just campaigners but politicians and scientists too who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging of science’s predictions?

To state that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.”

Mike Hulme. The director 2000-2007 of the tyndall centre for climate change research

“Self evidently dangerous climate change will not come from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the social contingent dementions of a post normal science, but to proffer such insights scientists and politicians must trade normal truth for influence.”Professor Mike hulmeagain.

On Climate models:
Until we can establish a reasonable level of internal consistency and empirical adequacy, declining to interpret model-based probabilities as decision-relevant probabilities isn't high skepticism, but scientific common sense.
Tacit knowledge gets lost in translation with climate modelling.” The Bulletin online10 march 2008.

The Blog “Real climate”, the font of catastrophe, states the following with respect to climate models and predictions:
“A scenario only illustrates the climatic affect of the specified forcing.”
“The scenarios can become obsolete and cannot be verified or falsified by observed data because the observed data have become dominated by other affects not included in the sinarios. This is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure the first IPCC report did talk about prediction. In many respects the first report wasn’t nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. One should not mix up a sinario with a forecast. I can not easily compare a sinario for the affects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data because I cannot isolate the affects of the greenhouse gases in these data. Given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.”!
April 28, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You bring me joy :)
April 28, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

This is the definition of a sensitivity experiment according to roger Pielki
The IPCC were given sensitivity model runs. These have been misconstrued as prophecies.

Prof David Vaughan(glacier expert at British Antarctic survey):
“There are a lot of differences from year to year in the Antarctic. Some stations show warming and some, ,like the one at the south pole show cooling. The jury is still out on what is going to happen.”
Taken from Telegraph article by Richard Gray 04/11/07

"If back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary" Dr. Tim Patterson - Professor of Geology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
The last two quotes illustrate clearly the misguided and well meaning nature of some individuals pushing the alarmist view.

"Consensus is the business of politics. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." Michael Crichton

“Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it [in 1997]?… Hell no!” said
Gore. He then explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support
could be mustered for action on environmental issues. Answer given by Gore was at a private showing of his climate slide show in January 2006 at the Americans for tax reform.

And so we have Chinese whisper science. Demonstrated by the IPCC. Not all scientists agree and most are not quoted accurately by the summaries for policy makers. Look like settled science to you?
It doesn’t look like a wholesale conspiracy but a patchwork of exaggeration, fraud, greed, misguided virtue, bias, panic and primitive herding instinct. All in all a Human fabricated entity without substantive empirical evidence and without observed data for support. Not a reason to tighten your belt and braces but to quote Michael Chrichton a good reason to “reach for your wallet for you’re being had.”
April 28, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencer - wow a youtube video now there's a real science source! If you make an actual argument and provide a link to support it I might take a look at it - at least then I'll have some idea if it's worth my time.

>>Also, there are CO2 sequestering technologies that trap it underground, where algae processes it back into Oxygen.<<

Um, no they aren't, algae require sunlight for photosynthesis which doesn't work very well underground - that's rather basic science there. BTW, I'm quite familiar with CO2 sequestering and know an engineer with Sandia working on a WESTCARB project
http://www.westcarb.org/

>>Al Gore's film, for which he won a nobel prize, is propaganda, all the way to the sci-fi footage from "the day after tomorrow" showing an ice shelf falling into the ocean, a scene that he used in his movie.<<

I never cited Al Gore. I have made several points and provide sources supporting those. Care to address a point that I actually made??

>>Furthermore, even if man-made GW is real, there are two ways to deal with it; hamper humanity, or ignore it. In hampering it, we slow down our economic activity, maybe control the population, force very expensive green energy solutions, basically let radical Leftists take over and control our lives. We will then live in a perpetual recession...or we can go with the dissenting half of the scientists' point-of-view and just ignore it.<<

Wow, now there's some heavy duty alamism! First off, I think you are creating a false dichotomy, and in so doing may end up and shooting yourself in the foot. If you think the only thing to do is let the radical Leftists take over or do nothing guess what's going to happen? Listen to what Newt Gingrinch has been saying of late.

Here's what I think (and hope) is going to end up happening - many on the right are going to start (and have) to realize that if they keep playing the skeptic game that the whole thing is going to backfire in a big way - like the ethanol fiasco.

Look for a lot more nuclear development (it's already started) for example:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pd...

>>The models don't work, and the empirical evidence is both statistically insignificant and explained by natural cycles.<<

Got something a little more substantive than a youtube video to support that? I've written numerous posts about natural cycles - including right here an this thread - care to address those or are you just going to make generalistic, unsupported assertions?
April 28, 2008

1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

If you had watched the video, cool smart guy, you would have seen plenty of dissenting scientist giving valid dissenting opinions. Furthermore, I made a mistake with the sequestration comment. There are technologies that both sequester it underground and that use it to convert CO2 back into oxygen.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/. I used to research this junk, so I know it exists. Again, it is expensive and probably not worth it.

Here are some other articles referring to scientific studies and expert opinions regarding the fallacies of studies formerly done that conclude an outcome of global warming.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/...
April 28, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Ethanol is a fiasco. The people pushing that are off their rockers and in someone's political pocket; as are the enviro-wackos.

What do we do about global warming...we create environmental laws that restrict importation of gasoline, which causes (among other things) the supply of fuel to diminish and the cost to rise. What do we do about it...we pass laws that illegalize incandescent bulbs. Your politicians make our choices for us. In Hawaii, they tax vehicles based on size and fuel efficiency in order to help us make our choices for us. These Lefty politicians inhibit the building of local oil refineries. They inhibit the building of coal-fired plants in some states (Florida and Nevada are the most well-known offenders of this). They give grants to people who build wind and solar energy, two sources that are infinite, but random and completely inefficient. Tell me that the Left isn't slowly siezing control of our lives as a reaction to a global warming that has not been proven (because in real science, there is no "proving theories", only disproving them. There is dissent, but no one including you, CL, are listening). Furthermore, one of the answers to the "problem" is to slow down our economies (spouted from Bill Clinton's own mouth).
April 28, 2008

2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

And socialism is favored by the majorities of environmentalists. If you aren't watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), then you are at least allied heavily with the socialists. What do socialists do...they step in and take our personal property from us and make our decisions for us, the same as your enviro-wacko friends.

There is plenty of dissent about global warming. I am no scientist, but I can rely on real scientists' opinions based on both research and re-analysis of faulty research by the Lefty wackos. Just because your politically motivated mind, which understands the science better than mine, believes in global warming does not make it so. I listen to the scientists that have shot down just about every aspect of your side's arguments. It does not matter that you can site studies. I don't have access to the studies, nor am I inclined to search for them.

I let scientists do the science for me. I am an economist, and I know that socialism is a load of BS that has failed time and again over the last two hundred years, at every level. Social healthcare does not work, nor does socialized education, and at the macro level, it is a huge failure (see N. Korea, Cuba, Russia and to a lesser extent, Germany and France).

All I know for certain about global warming is that the answer is awfully similar to that of the socialists, and we already know where that leaves us. I don't believe in run-away capitalism, but I definitely don't agree with the socialist answers to it. You are on the same side, and you are wrong.

Furthermore, I can choose to listen to my own PhDs, and you can go ahead and listen to yours. You were educated in the same liberal system, so of course there is no reason to expect abstract original thought from you or even concessions of the science conducted by people who do not believe the same way as you.
April 28, 2008

2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

I do believe in going nuclear, CL, and for all your complaining about a youtube that I gave you a link to, everything posted here by you before I started posting lacks any source at all. And the youtube is actually a CNN broadcast that depends on dissenting scientists.

So what is your source...or what is your credential? Do you have a PhD in one of these fields. You speak scientifically in a way that someone without any scientific education past 100 level geology and biology classes has...or do you have a B.S. in something. I don't exactly consider that a credential that gives you expertise. Tell me you have at least an M.S. if you are on here lecturing about science and dissenting against video of people who are experts in their fields. Let me take that back. You can do whatever you want. Just don't tell me to go find a source unless you have a source for your own enviornmentalist stance.
April 28, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Spencer, I'm glad I bring you Joy! I wasn't ignoring you, I was on a roll. It's a pity that CL likes to make quality judgements about everyone's chosen reading and video sources. If you care to CL I have an entire hard drive devoted to the subject. Would you care to come and peruse it as I would greatly value your wise opinion as arbiter of good source material. The Nuclear industry is already growing. Bio fuels will flop in the fullness of time and fossel fuels will continue to be used. That's my prediction! The future is unknowable.
April 28, 2008

3:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Positive feedback as you well know refers to the mechanism of heat produced by greenhouse gases due to UV conversion into long wave radiation. This is not disputed by anyone I know of. The runaway greenhose is that which exists in the minds of the likes of James Hansen and that does not account for the natural negative forcing due to clouds and water vapour to name just two. I think this distinction is quite clear. So to clarify again for those who don't understand. Positive feedback or climate forcing IE produces in this case warming; negative feedback or heat sink produced by water vapour, clouds, albedo, precipitation, aerosols...some in the list are also climate forcing in different scenarios. CL seems to take everything I say in my remarks even from the original post to be aimed squarely at him!...Well young fella me lad...if the cap fits then wear it. I was remarking in general on my take on reading the entire post list from start to finish when I happened upon it the other day. I had to go back to see who said what and what their names were. My figures as I said are taken from the outlets that are widely quoted. I am, in fact registered blind and cannot capture the blue text links that you crave I have a heavy and getting heavier hard drive of info, data, graphs, scientific papers, and short cuts to websites that I regularly visit every day. Perhaps if my speech software worked a little better I'd be able to cut and paste the blue text a little easier. Looking at the responses that other posters get from Mr CL, I am not prepared to take the several hours that would be involved in gathering these links merely to be insulted the way that MR CL likes to do. If he has read the GISS data and CRU temperature data and John Christy's graphs then he knows where my sources are and does not need a "lazy link". That is a cheap shot. You'll have to do better than that. This is a web blog not a court of law! On the other hand if anyone is genuinely interested in any particular aspect then I am the first person to help in offering any information that I have gathered thus far.
April 28, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Sorry for any offence Mr CL. I really wasn't aiming my original remarks at you. I'm going to go silent now and leave the rest of the debate to everyone else.
Cheers!
April 29, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -
>>If you had watched the video, cool smart guy, you would have seen plenty of dissenting scientist giving valid dissenting opinions.<<

Fine - provide references to their published works and I may look at them (if I haven't read them already).

Just saying there are "plenty of dissenting scientist" is meaningless and has been repeated ad nauseam. See - I was already aware of this so bother with the video? If you have a specific point post it and we can go from there.

>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/. I used to research this junk, so I know it exists. Again, it is expensive and probably not worth it.<<

Sheesh, at least give a clue as to what this is. For all I know it might be like this:

http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id941.html. I used to reasearch this junk, so i know it exists.

>>Here are some other articles referring to scientific studies and expert opinions regarding the fallacies of studies formerly done that conclude an outcome of global warming.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/...

Why should I waste my time on opinion pieces? If they refer to "scientific studies" then why not provide links to those and some clue as to just what the heck the supposed "fallacies" are?

Have you read these studies yourself or just what others tell you what's in them? I don't spend much time here as I have better and more important ways to spend my time than to unravel what some opinion columnist has to say about "scientific studies" that they themselves most likely haven't read
April 29, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I have to say that I truly enjoy and learn from CL's tutoring sessions...plus it's really entertaining to watch the Deniers beat their heads against the wall of credible science.

oh well...rosen gets busted again in the meantime...schilling for exxon the week before and schilling for a conservative lobbying group (in part funded by exxonmobil) this week...which is why rosen is more irrelevant than ever. why the rmn employs a man whose actions identify him as a republican mouth piece/lobbyist, by deed if not by title, is a mystery to me. he is basically placing exxon propaganda in your newspaper people. doesn't that bother anyone? at least when campos writes a hit piece he's not actively bullhorning for a particular special interest groups who are funded by folks like exxon.

elevate your game a little rosie, your slip is showing.
April 29, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -

part I

>>Tell me that the Left isn't slowly siezing control of our lives as a reaction to a global warming that has not been proven (because in real science, there is no "proving theories", only disproving them. There is dissent, but no one including you, CL, are listening). Furthermore, one of the answers to the "problem" is to slow down our economies (spouted from Bill Clinton's own mouth).<<

>>And socialism is favored by the majorities of environmentalists.<<

I agree to a certain extent.

>>If you aren't watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), then you are at least allied heavily with the socialists.<<

But I disagree here.

>>What do socialists do...they step in and take our personal property from us and make our decisions for us, the same as your enviro-wacko friends.<<

My "enviro-wacko friends"? You don't know who my friends are, this is simply baseless slander.

>>Just because your politically motivated mind, which understands the science better than mine, believes in global warming does not make it so.<<

I rarely discuss politics, so where do you come up with the "politically motivated mind" nonsense? I don't "believe" in global warming - if you read my posts you'll see I discuss the science and what is known about what's going on. What you won't see me discussing is how warm it's going to get or how high sea level is going to get.
April 29, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -

part II

>>I listen to the scientists that have shot down just about every aspect of your side's arguments. It does not matter that you can site studies.<<

I see, you are so convinced that "my side's" arguments have been shot down then the discussion is over? Is that why my points go unrebutted?

From what you have posted so far (ie opinion pieces) it looks to me like you listen not to the scientists, but what others are telling you the scientist's are saying. If that's the case, then how do you know if what they are telling you accurately represents what the scientists are saying?

>>I don't have access to the studies, nor am I inclined to search for them.<<

Interesting - so then why would you expect me to watch some youtube video?

>>I let scientists do the science for me. I am an economist, and I know that socialism is a load of BS that has failed time and again over the last two hundred years, at every level.<<

I'm a capitalist so you won't find me disagreeing on socialism. What I see is politics and ideology warping science to their own ends, be it EarthFirst or the Heartland Institute which is totally bass-ackwards and I see many people who judge the science in the same way. For example, it makes no sense to reject seismology because then you might need to buy earthquake insurance. Nor does it make sense to accept seismology just because your insurance agent says you need to buy earthquake insurance. The rational approach is to understand the seismology and in the context of your own risks vs. costs decide if you need earthquake insurance or if your agent is full of it.
April 29, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -

"There are technologies that both sequester it underground and that use it to convert CO2 back into oxygen."

Yes, but they are two different things. Sequestering technologies are geared toward long term/permanent storage of CO2. CO2 conversion technologies (such as using algae) are geared towards converting CO2 back into hydrocarbons. They are two totally different engineering problems.
April 29, 2008

1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

see manhattan declaration...google it...go on! use those fingers and type into the search bar. No lazy links here!
April 29, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i googled the manhattan declaration and only received propaganda from an exxon funded lobbying group.

am i missing something?
April 29, 2008

4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

Rosen: "I've got a better idea. While we're waiting for the breakthrough in hydrogen fusion technology that will make water a cheap and plentiful energy source, why not put Americans to work developing our known natural gas and petroleum resources offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?"

Because they already are, except for ANWR. Domestic drilling activities have increased over the past years...and so have energy prices. It's not going to make a dent there, sorry.

And talk about a smooth transition from one term to another. "Drilling" has now become "development." At least Rosen is giving a nod to the truth of the matter, that exploration is more likely rather than any meaningful output.

I also notice Rosen doesn't espouse that any oil actually extracted from places like ANWR be restricted to domestic sales only. So is his only argument that it will give Americans jobs? Isn't employment at an all time high, according to his "ilk"?
April 29, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

CL, I toast a virtual drink to you, my friend! It's been a blast reading your deadpan hilarious responses. And obviously better informed ones, at that.
April 30, 2008

6:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

That’s faulty logic if I ever did see it. The International Conference on Climate Change was sponsored by the Heartland Institute. So what. What does that say? Does it say that all the names on this list are to be disbelieved? Clearly not. If Cruella Devil funded research into the greenest way to buy a green car in Greenland would it void the study because she funded it? If Attila the Hun wanted to fund a study into “nut gathering behaviour in squirrels with special reference to climate change” would you discount the study because Atilla funded it? Would you perhaps just count it in with the others which you like? If Robin Hood funded research into why everyone below six feet tall should be bumped off would you think his work was worthy because you like Robin Hood?
Sorry mate but you need to look at the scientific argument and get politics out of your thinking on this subject. This is very hard because politics has found it’s way in for all sides involved.

I, like most people, thought that there had to be a strong argument for this AGW because we hear so much about it from sources that, in England, most have come to love and trust: The BBC, The Royal Society (scientific institution). We had our very own Sir David King saying that mankind will no doubt only survive because some mating couples will move to Antarctica. I became interested because I did feel sceptical about the possibility of man having such an impact, and then being able to change the climate to suit ourselves by manipulating our emissions. This was based purely on a hunch and nothing more. I have truthfully tried to find the argument for AGW (and that is something that only I can know).
Now what I discovered is that there seems to be a basic split between those who put high importance on observed data and empirical evidence and those who place emphasis on climate models.
I think it is fair to say that the IPCC is the main source/outlet that subscribes to the idea that mankind’s emissions are causing dangerous levels of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere at an alarming rate. I therefore assert that the IPCC are the main outlet for the motion.
So what did I do? I read the IPCC document and the relevant summary that is supposed to pass on the simple message to policy makers. They are not the same. There are very clear uncertainties and unknowns which are ignored by those writing the summary.

I would suggest that you too read the IPCC’s report, I guess you will approve of their funding source. This is probably the best place to start for those who really think the science is settled and that it is just evil oil that is causing dissent.
April 30, 2008

6:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

For those who are prepared to suspend their disbelief then go to the ICSC where you can peruse the names of all the signatures on the Manhattan declaration. It is clearly split into lists of those who were physically there to sign, those who signed separately to the conference and those who are lay scientists who have no direct association with the field of climate science. The list of members of the public such as myself is yet to be uploaded last time I looked. I am a Physiotherapist, with no car and no links last time I looked to oil money.
In the course of my studies over the last six months many of the names have become very well known to me and many have worked for the IPCC. Some still work for the IPCC.

If you want a concensus then be careful what you wish for, for it might come true. This is not the way science evolves. The reason for this petition was no doubt to satisfy those who claim consensus and that the science is settled. Dictionary definition of consensus is the majority or general agreement. This must therefore mean more than half? It’s enough to change a parliament but not enough to change the truth.
April 30, 2008

9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

endorsers was what I meant rather than signitures. The word Declaration is more correct for those exacting among us! And by the way I just came upon another quote from the IPCC that states that the globe has warmed about .06 degrees per decade for the last 100 years. .06multiplied by 10 =.6 deg C.But hey Cl likes 1 degree. MIT Prof Richard Lindzen likes .5...whatever floats your boat. As for cause and effect CO2 v Temperature which predicts which have a look at william Briggs website on statistics. See the letter recently written to the head of IPCC and copied to our prime minister et al about this lack of evidence.
April 30, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy (part I)
>>It's a pity that CL likes to make quality judgements about everyone's chosen reading and video sources.<<

Actually Joy, if you paid attention to what I wrote you would see that my complaint is when a link is posted purporting to represent what a scientist has to say but the link isn't to what the scientist has to say, but rather what someone else (like an opinion columnist) says the scientist the scientist has to say. First off, that's hearsay secondly I prefer to my info direct from the source.

Another complaint is when a link is posted with no explanation of why it's relevant, why I'd be interested in seeing it or how it supposedly addresses a point made.

>>Positive feedback as you well know refers to the mechanism of heat produced by greenhouse gases due to UV conversion into long wave radiation. This is not disputed by anyone I know of.<<

Then you don't know many people because its simply wrong on many points

1) "positive feedback" is simply an amplification of an effect and isn't tied to a specific mechanism.
2) greenhouse gasses absorb infra red radiation that originates from the absorption of the broad band (NOT just UV) solar radiation being re-radiated from the earth's surface in the infra red.
3) the absorption of IR itself is not a feedback, its a feedback only if this becomes self reinforcing. CO2 doesn't change how it absorbs IR.

>>Positive feedback or climate forcing IE produces in this case warming; negative feedback or heat sink produced by water vapour, clouds, albedo, precipitation, aerosols...some in the list are also climate forcing in different scenarios. CL seems to take everything I say in my remarks even from the original post to be aimed squarely at him!<<

No, I simply pointed out that at one point you referred to clouds as a negative feedback and then as a positive feedback. I asked you which it was.

Feedback is simply something that influences the inputs to itself. A positive feedback is when the resulting inputs are reinforcing while a negative feedback results in inputs that are restricting or dampening. You are confusing positive feedback with increasing temperatures and negative feedback with decreasing temperatures which is incorrect.

The only remark I responded to as being "aimed at me" was when you wrote:

"Your loud assertion is ignorant and unhelpful if you want to excite people into changing their lives for the "planetary emmergency""

My response was that is not the case.
April 30, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy (part II)
>>I am not prepared to take the several hours that would be involved in gathering these links ...<<

But you seem willing to spend the time to post pages and pages here.

>>merely to be insulted the way that MR CL likes to do. If he has read the GISS data and CRU temperature data and John Christy's graphs then he knows where my sources are and does not need a "lazy link". That is a cheap shot.<<

If I read the GISS data? Here's what I wrote:

>>No, I don't have my own data set - you can look at the GISS data yourself at the link I gave John_II in my 8:20 post - here it is again:

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

There you will see the anomaly for 1907 is -0.39 C and is 0.59 C for 2007 - a difference of 0.98 C - much closer to 1 degree C than .5.<<

How is that a cheap shot? What's "cheap" is slinging insults the way you have and then whining when your assertion is directly contradicted by the very data that you try to claim support it. "Cheap" is insinuating that I haven't read the GISS data when I cited that very data AND included the source.
April 30, 2008

12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Exhoosier24 writes:

Mike Rosen is a complete nincompoop. Global climate change is a reality and it is human caused. He might be interested to know that over 50 of the 500 scientists listed by the Exxon-Mobil supported Heartland Institute (read: front men for Big Oil) have written to Heartland and demanded their names be removed from the list. So 10% of the scientists have deserted or should not have been on there to begin with. Also, this mean that Heartland's remaining scientists are still outnumbered by scientists who believe in the actual science by about 1,000 to 1. The global change deniers are truly stuck with their head in the sand.
April 30, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

CL. I don't need a junior school explanation of positive and negative feedback as a generic term. The term speaks for itself. My remark about the positive/negative that you misunderstood referred to the climate forcing affect of CO2 that is said by some to then have a further affect due to subsequent ocean warming and further release of CO2. The convenient misunderstanding on your part is a poor smoke screen to confuse those who read your remarks. I made it very clear that climate models thus far do not deal with the negative feedbacks that exist in the real world. Clouds are one of these as you well know. You also know that it is hypothesised by some that different types of cloud have different affects in terms of their contribution to temperature.
You say I "wine" this is your assumption. What I object to is your bullying of the likes ofSpencer. If someone tells you that they are not ina position to provide links to papers of our pleasing you assert that they are in some way your intellectual inferior. This is my observation of you so far. It is sad if this is untrue as I don't like to think bad of people.
April 30, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

As far as my time spent on this blog, I think you have a point. I genuinly am interested in debate on the subject and do not like the mud slinging that often seems to go with this topic. If one feels atacked then one will defend oneself in kind.
In the matter of my finding the web links, this is a real problem for me and I have been unable to easily do this without a lengthy process. My files are, in the main, PDF's and speech software does not allow me to capture the links easily. This has to be done character by character. Now I suppose you can appreciate why I chose to quote rather than provide links. This is my failing and I don't wine about it but it needs explanation. There is one that has interested me recently on climate audit There you might hear debate on the subject of accuracy of climate models with remarks on the recent douglas paper. Ross McKitrick makes some very powerful points and there is much debate about whether the douglas paper's statistical flaws negate their conclusion. It's very long but worth the read.
April 30, 2008

10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

clyde writes:

Without mindlessly scrolling through all the ignorance, I still await a definitive description of what the "proper" climate for Earth really is. You can't even make a move toward achieving it if you have no idea what it is.
May 1, 2008

5:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

true enough. As I understand now, the "ideal climate" according to those who think we can control it is defined by the average of the temperatures between1960 and 1990. It's hillarious. We had our tony Blair telling a fellow european head of state that he could cut emisions so as to control the temperature by 2 degrees. His counterpart boasted 3! Imagine that. they can control our climate like a thermostat to a degree celcius. I wish they were as clever with their economics!. Of course the public here are wise enough to see through this.
May 1, 2008

5:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

There is no set standard for global temperature. There is no set standard for sea level. There is no set standard for CO2. There is no set standard for ice extent.
The standard is that the climate changes, period.
May 1, 2008

6:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

I have just looked at the data to which Cl directs me and it is clear where the contradiction comes from. Note the base line is taken from 1951 to 1980. Clearly if you count from 1907 to 2007 there is nearly one degree difference. However the base line I now see used and clearly marked on graphs from CRUfor example their baseline is from 1960 to 1990. Why has this changed? Don't get defenciveCL, this is not aimed at you. It has amused me for some time that base lines are shifted to prove whatever point one wishes to make. I would rather see the raw data, no smoothing, noshinanigins with "corrective"maths. If you go to Climate debate daily, click on cru temp data. There are graphs which for some reason show a different baseline. Cl's one degree and my half come from this factor. The IPCC claim warming of .6 degrees averaged on a decadal basis with .06 degrees in each incrament. You see all this makes me suspicious as to why everyone's not singing from the same song sheet. surely temperature is temperature? There should be no difference here. Just in case CL thinks I mean to say that "my base line is better than his" I really do not. I would be interested to know which is The current way of looking at this matter.
May 1, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -
>>So what is your source...or what is your credential? Do you have a PhD in one of these fields. You speak scientifically in a way that someone without any scientific education past 100 level geology and biology classes has...or do you have a B.S. in something. I don't exactly consider that a credential that gives you expertise. Tell me you have at least an M.S.<<

B.S. & M.S. - geology.
May 1, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy (Part I) -

>>What I object to is your bullying of the likes ofSpencer. If someone tells you that they are not ina position to provide links to papers of our pleasing you assert that they are in some way your intellectual inferior.<<

May I remind you that spencerr made comments such as "the same as your enviro-wacko friends". Explain why I should respond to those types of remarks with kid gloves?

You are overlooking several points of my exchange with spencerr. The first is he made several assertions but did not articulate an argument supporting those assertions. Here's an example:

>>I listen to the scientists that have shot down just about every aspect of your side's arguments. It does not matter that you can site studies. I don't have access to the studies, nor am I inclined to search for them.<<

Do you not see the obvious contradiction there? You wrote "Loud assertion from ignorant people does not make it true" - please explain why that is not a description of what spencerr wrote. Please explain why spencerr should be able to make such statements and I should not be able to question them?
May 1, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy (Part II) -
>>My remark about the positive/negative that you misunderstood referred to the climate forcing affect of CO2 that is said by some to then have a further affect due to subsequent ocean warming and further release of CO2.<<

What I was responding to was:
>>Positive feedback as you well know refers to the mechanism of heat produced by greenhouse gases due to UV conversion into long wave radiation.<<

So here we have, again, 2 different statements yet you tell me I misunderstood the first one because what you wrote isn't what you wrote?

>>Note the base line is taken from 1951 to 1980. Clearly if you count from 1907 to 2007 there is nearly one degree difference. However the base line I now see used and clearly marked on graphs from CRUfor example their baseline is from 1960 to 1990. Why has this changed? Don't get defenciveCL, this is not aimed at you. It has amused me for some time that base lines are shifted to prove whatever point one wishes to make.<<

I'm not defensive, it was a perfectly reasonable question.

Baselines are simply reference points. The GISS 1907 data point is 0.39 C less than the reference point and the GISS 2007 data point is 0.59 C higher than the same reference point. CRU is a separate data set from GISS from a different group - the baselines aren't changed, it's just that the two groups used different baselines and not shifted to prove some point.

>>I would rather see the raw data, no smoothing, noshinanigins with "corrective"maths.<<

The GISS data I cited has the raw data. The CRU data raw data is here:

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/...

The CRU data has the 1907 anomaly at -0.448 C and 2007 at +0.421 C - a difference of 0.869 C - still closer to 1 degree C than 0.5 C

>>There are graphs which for some reason show a different baseline. Cl's one degree and my half come from this factor.<<

No

>>There should be no difference here. Just in case CL thinks I mean to say that "my base line is better than his" I really do not.<<

There are not "My baselines". I've cited both the GISS AND the CRU data now and neither support your claims. Thats why I ask for specific references and don't rely solely on your "quotes" - as we can easily see the data does not say what you claim it does.
May 1, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

You're right about me, CL...I listen to what other people tell me the scientists tell me, including you. From the Left, I hear that the water level is going to raise 20 inches...yada yada. I hear about doomsday. From the Right, I hear that all the planets this side of Mars are experiencing global warming, that our sun and natural cycles are responsible for global warming. I hear that the temperature change is statistically insignificant, and I hear that there has been a miniscule, if statistically insignificant aggregate decrease in temperature in the last ten years. And then the youtube video that you won't look at...admittedly a Right wing take on the subject...like I said, however, the source of that video is a CNN broadcast that nicely wraps up the Right's points. Their reporter, through his scientists, is the one that come to the conclusion that heat preceds CO2 based on ice core samples. I have also heard that the CO2 level has increased by like one PPB over the last couple of decades...1 per billion. The Right also points out that all the Left's doomsday models have so far completely failed to accurately predict a climate trend.
May 1, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

spencerr...credible, peer-reviewed, scientifcally valid information is neither "Left" nor "Right".

I think you should try a new filter...and keep the politicians and lobbyists away from your decision making process.
May 1, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

spencerr writes:

Furthermore, if you follow both Leftist economics and this type of environmentalist propaganda, you will see striking similarities between their solutions; they are allies. Paraphrasing from an exerpt in Jurassic Park, the earth was here before humans, and it will be here afterwards, even if we manage to destroy almost everything...there will still be life here in some extremety of our planet, just waiting to start over.

Furthermore, so many things have become extinct since our planet was born that the current list of living beings is dwarfed by their extinct predecessors. One thing is for certain...humanity will not be here forever.

We should be doing what we can to make the world as liveable as possible, at least for Americans...which to me means that we should not be hampering economic activity because the scientists in academia are preaching something that may or may not exist. Until the late seventies, they preached global cooling in order to push their same socialist agenda. Different half century, different propaganda.

All that being said, we should not go out of our way to wreck this place either, including changing the percentage of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere. We absolutely should be working toward a non-combustion way to make the world go 'round. However, subsidizing inefficient green solutions and banning carbon-based power plants is not the solution...it is the way to make it very expensive for Americans to live. One day, maybe fifty years from now, we will be off oil, and that will be awesome. No need to push it and constrain our quality of life in the meantime.

...that being said, nuclear is the way to go, and for the first time in like twenty years, the permitting process for these is starting to be more successful again (takes like ten or twenty years from the beginning of the permitting process to operation though). And about my last CO2 sequestration/algae comment...the verbage I used in that post was misleading. I meant that there are two different technologies. It had been awhile since I researched in that area, and I should have found sources before mentioning the two technologies, which you are correct, are two different engineering problems.
May 1, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

J I think you should take your own advice. It is amusing that you chirp on about peer review in every remark you make without the realisation that there are scientists who dissagree with AGW hypothesis and publish in peer reviewed journals. Read Roy spencer's explanation. If you want to see peer reviewed publication then read the article which you can link to from his site. This can be also found from climate debate daily's site. An excellent site for material that sets out both sides of the debate. NO! not funded by oil (Yawn) but by two university lecturers who happen to have differing views.
I think that J takes great comfort in feeling on the side of intellectual concensus. Well J, get consensus out of your scientific decision making.
May 1, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"J I think you should take your own advice. It is amusing that you chirp on about peer review in every remark you make without the realisation that there are scientists who dissagree with AGW hypothesis and publish in peer reviewed journals"

joy i see a lot of confusion on what actually qualifies as peer reviewed information. just because a scientist who in the past has had unrelated information go through the peer review process makes a statement that he or she has issues with the consensus behind gw...that doesn't mean that the information they are using to come to this "conclusion" has been peer reviewed.

understand the difference? if you do, you'll start to realize that scientists opinions mean very very little...whereas peer reviewed DATA does...thus the point.
May 1, 2008

11:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Now, , for Cl, or anyone else. Where do you see the evidence for human induced global warming? Answers must not include the words Al Gore or peer reviewed journal quantity as proof. I am interested in where the AGW proponents think the evidence lies. I see none in the natural world data as opposed to climate models. This is not to be misconstrued as peer review doesn't count. Read the question carefully. What would be really great is if the answer could describe the proof and I'll trust them about the source to get past this hiatus about links and sources.
May 1, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

J, and that's interesting comming from someone who spouts about funding sources constantly. Now scientists are forced to disclose their funding in order to dodge the many and numerous accusations about their motivation. It's sad to think that some very eminant scientists are being put through this mud slinging. So J what about those reviewers and lead authors of IPCC, (Said to be peer reviewed) who disagree with the AGW hysteria? Where do they fit in to your world of valuable opinion/data? Since when did peer review allow for those working on the study to constitute peer review? If drug companies worked like climate science currently does we'd all be turning our toes up.
May 1, 2008

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

again joy...there's a difference between a scientist's opinion and peer reviewed data...no matter who is funding said opinion.

do you understand the difference?
May 1, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

LFC writes:

JAY-

"i googled the manhattan declaration and only received propaganda from an exxon funded lobbying group."

You are really funny...and a bit hypocritical. I find it entertaining that you throw democratic website in my face to try and prove one of your, well empty points (so far).....AT THE SAMETIME you get on people that send you info that is backed by sources that they believe. How old are you?

Okay I do have a question now for you. Can you please tell me the policies that Bush has in place that have affected the oil prices? I have been able to find some indirect ways, but it seems you have something that is direct. Do you? And if so can you please send it to me?
May 1, 2008

1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

J I heard you the first time. Now what peer reviewed data are you referring to?
May 1, 2008

1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lfc...you are apparently suffering from the same type of confusion that afflicts joy. i didn't see any peer reviewed data from the heartland insitute.

have either of you?
May 1, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Those peers that review new studies are supposed to be separate from those who take part in the work and are preferably not supposed to be linked directly with the same work. In other words there is not supposed to be, if possible bias due to monitary, , familial or friendship bias. It is precicely this sort of corruption of the peer review process that leads to the publication of the cricket bat..I mean golf club graph! Is this the peer reviewed high grade data to which you refer?
May 1, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

attacking the peer review process is always the last vestige of those cornered by data which they are unable to refute.

i take it we're nearly done here.

again....did the exxon-funded heartland "institute" provide any such information?
May 1, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Are you saying that there were no peer reviewed scientists that have published their work in related fields at the conference? And back to the cricket bat and the issues around the IPCC's "peer review" process? What do you know about that? Quick leap frog there over the thorny issue! And again J What data are you referring to? In plain English: Where is the evidence for human induced climate catastrophe? Answer came there none.
May 1, 2008

4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you're still confused, joy.

a scientist's unrelated work may have been peer reviewed in the past, but that doesn't mean that his/her future OPINIONS are based on peer reviewed data....making said opinions worthless when it comes to comparing them with conclusions based on peer reviewed data.

understand the point?

if you're still confused about the process that peer reviewed work goes through or are unaware of the peer reviewed data that supports the global scientific consensus on gw, i suggest you google it and become a little better informed on the matter.
May 2, 2008

1:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

J it is you who are confused. I think it' funny that you keep repeating the same words with no idea of how to get around the fact that there are peer reviewed studies that reject, cast doubt on, conclusions drawn from IPCC summaries. Instead you try to twist my words or infir meaning that is not there from my remarks. and insult my intelligence.
What data do you refer to? You use the word as if you know what it is. Yet, it is clear from your remarks that you have no grasp of what constitutes data and what constitutes a peer reviewed study and in fact, what constitutes opinion. It is probably news to you that all who work in the field have access, including you, to the same data. IE real world observation. Now, while CL is busy claiming that three tenths of a degree are important to AGW it is true to say that there are four recognised outlets for global mean temperature that all have to grapple with. What has this got to do with peer review? Furthermore I put it to you J that you have no understanding whatsoever of what AGW theory is and how it is supposed to work. I think this is true of too many individuals who try to defend it. How can you defend it if you don't know what the theory is? I can't relate to that.
May 2, 2008

4:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

http://www.sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/

Http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/co2....

Now that took over an hour to retrieve. These are websites that publish work that does not subscribe to the man made catastrophe. It is peer reviewed. for what it's worth and for those with more enquiring minds, worth consideration.
May 2, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr -

>>You're right about me, CL...I listen to what other people tell me the scientists tell me, including you. From the Left, I hear that the water level is going to raise 20 inches...yada yada. I hear about doomsday. From the Right, I hear that all the planets this side of Mars are experiencing global warming, that our sun and natural cycles are responsible for global warming. I hear that the temperature change is statistically insignificant, and I hear that there has been a miniscule, if statistically insignificant aggregate decrease in temperature in the last ten years. And then the youtube video that you won't look at...admittedly a Right wing take on the subject...like I said, however, the source of that video is a CNN broadcast that nicely wraps up the Right's points. Their reporter, through his scientists, is the one that come to the conclusion that heat preceds CO2 based on ice core samples. I have also heard that the CO2 level has increased by like one PPB over the last couple of decades...1 per billion. The Right also points out that all the Left's doomsday models have so far completely failed to accurately predict a climate trend.<<

Here's the thing - if you take what the Left says, you are going to hear what the Left wants you to hear and if you listen to the Right then you are going to listen to what the Right wants you to hear. That's why I don't rely on CNN or opinion columns to try and understand whats going on in the real world.

Besides - I've heard many of the arguments before. For example "heat precedes CO2" - see my post on 4/27 @ 9:12 a.m.

That's not to say one shouldn't pay attention to what the Left, Right, CNN and opinion columnists say because then you are getting into the politics and what actions and policies might result. The key is realizing that it is irrational to understand science from the same parties that are pushing the policies. One of my favorite examples is the groups that, before GW became an issue, insisted that we must get rid of those evil SUVs. Now that GW is an issue, the solution from those same groups is to get rid of those evil SUVs.
May 2, 2008

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

spencerr - I pretty much agree with your 11:07 post.
May 2, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Joy -
>>Now, , for Cl, or anyone else. Where do you see the evidence for human induced global warming? Answers must not include the words Al Gore or peer reviewed journal quantity as proof. I am interested in where the AGW proponents think the evidence lies.<<

Well, I've never cited Gore but if you exclude science journals then what source of data should I use - my intuition?
May 2, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

no that won't be necessary (joke). I mean in a nutshell, how do you describe your view of what is going on in terms of AGW with any reference to where the data/evidence is that support the view. You know like at school when the question says: in your own words...(no sarcasm was intended there. I have heard the explanation ad nausium by like minded people as a prelim to explain why AGW doesn't work. Even Gavin Schmitt shyed from explaining it on the famous IQ2 debate. So it is not often spoken of clearly and carefully for many reasons demonstrated by everyone above.
May 2, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

joy writes:

Light relief! If you think you've got it bad with Rosen try our very own Jeremy Clarkson who wrote a hillarious article after being "cornered by the green lynch mob". I don't know if you know of him in the US (I've never heard of Rosen). It's interesting to see the same issues being thrashed out over here but with pie throwing for added slapstick. with pie throwing. People either love him or hate him over here and there's no in between. It's definately global.

Home › Opinion › Opinion Columns & Blogs

ROSEN: Global warming hysteria

By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs