Global warming panic continues to come under attack

A meteorologist who was one of the founders of the Weather Channel has finally had it when it comes to the increasingly loud voices drowning out all opposing views regarding Global Warming:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion [sic] of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

***

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In other words: “Hey, Chicken Little. The sky is not falling.”

As Rick Moran adds at American Thinker (where I got the above link):

If there is one sciientific discipline that has generally been skeptical of warming claims overall it has been Meteorologists. The fact that these are people who study the weather – not climate – and have generally been making the point that we can’t predict what the weather will be 5 days from now so how can we be predicting what it’s going to be like 100 years down the road?

38 Responses

  1. Listening to people who might actually know what they’re talking about – how boring is that?

  2. […] [Discuss this article with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article meteorologist, scientists, global warming, environmentalism, Global Warming, Nobel Prize, Vice President, humans    Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]

  3. Hmm, I’m still not seeing any results after three tries. How about just this little note? Will it make it past the WordPress censor?

  4. Jeez, I have tried five times now to post something and WordPress refuses to accept it and won’t tell me why, so I’m going to post it piece by piece until I find whatever it is that WordPress is objecting to. Here goes:

    The continuing problem here is that few non-scientists understand the process by which science is done. Scientists cherish diversity of opinion because they know that it’s what keeps them honest. The claims of suppression of knowledge are false. There are honest differences of opinion, and in some cases a scientific group will overrule a minority and publish results that a strong majority feels confident in. That is not censorship or suppression — that is pragmatic. And scientists have a far higher standard of agreement than most other areas of policymaking. A 5 to 4 decision in the Supreme Court is considered definitive. A 51 to 49 vote in the Senate is final. But in most scientific councils, they don’t decide on a conclusion unless they’ve got at least 80-20 or even 90-10. Then people point to the 10% dissenters and say “Scientists don’t know what they’re talking about”.

  5. It appears that the problem is with a link I included in the post. Here is a paragraph that was rejected, but I have removed the link:

    Ever heard of the National Academy of Sciences? Its forerunner was established by an act of Congress in the 1860s with the assignment of advising Congress on scientific and technical issues as they may affect policymaking. They were reorganized in the 1930s, I think. is their website.

  6. That’s it!!! WordPress refuses to accept a link to the National Academy of Sciences! Go figure. Here’s the rest of the piece, sans links:

    The NAS is a truly elitist organization; membership is by invitation only; invitations are extended only to scientists who have distinguished themselves with excellence. The NAS is also very conservative; knowing how important their credibility is, they don’t include anything in a report that they’re not highly certain of.

    Thus, the NAS is to science as the Supreme Court is to law. There are some differences: the Supreme Court has only 9 justices, where the NAS has hundreds of distinguished scientists to consider the issues. The Supreme Court decides issues on a simple majority basis, while the NAS requires a huge supermajority. The Supreme Court has to make its decisions in a single term; the NAS will take as long as it thinks it needs. The result of this much more careful approach is that, in its entire history, the NAS has NEVER issued a single report that was later shown to be incorrect. Not once in 140 years. Can you name ANY government institution with that kind of track record?

    So, what does the NAS have to say about climate change? Here is the first paragraph of their [report] on climate change:

    “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.”

    They also prepared a [short brochure] on the subject for easy public consumption. Here are some quotes from that brochure:

    “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.”
    “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the earth’s climate.”

    Thus, the reference to “global warming hysteria” is “extremely false”. It is not hysteria, it is well-developed and documented science. There is no basis for honest skepticism of the general contours of climate change — that skepticism is, in the vast majority of cases, predicated upon political attitudes, not rational analysis.

    Lastly, I offer a simple, unbeatable challenge: if you are skeptical of climate change science, then cite a statement in the latest IPCC report that you can refute. And if you haven’t even read the IPCC report, how can you deny its truth?

  7. WordPress is random in its screening. Sometimes it will allow manifest spam through, with dozens of links, while firmly rejecting something with one link. You just have to do what you did, Ophi, which is to be creative.

  8. The problem with your thesis, Ophi, is that in science, the dissenters (Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein) are all too often the ones who get it right. Conversely, the great scientific trend-de-jour theories (eugenics, global cooling, Malthusian population dynamics, behaviorism, etc.) get debunked with time. Science is about objective truth. It doesn’t answer to polls.

    And, in the case of man-made global warming, it is far more than 10% of scientists who dissent. Frankly, the movement probably jumped the shark when it claimed that there was no scientific dissent and studiously ignored data contrary to their thesis, a thesis promulgated in large part by a college drop-out with zero scientific credentials. See: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

  9. Er, sorry Ophie, I left out a citation to support my claim about scientific consensus: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

  10. in science, the dissenters (Darwin, Gallileo, Einstein) are all too often the ones who get it right.

    No, the great majority of dissenters are wrong. A tiny percentage are right. If you want to establish a principle that “the majority is often wrong, and the minority is often right”, we can all sorts of fun overturning just about everything and believing all sorts of nonsense. Flat-earthers are dissenters. UFO-philes are dissenters. Creationists are dissenters. Are you endorsing all these views?

    Conversely, the great scientific trend-de-jour theories (eugenics, global cooling, Malthusian population dynamics, behaviorism, etc.) get debunked with time.

    Eugenics was never a popular theory among scientists. There were a couple of eminent scientists who endorsed it, and the great majority responded with embarrassed silence. “Global cooling” was an idea cooked up by a couple of guys, given lots of press attention, and pretty well ignored by the scientific community, because it contradicted basic physics. Malthus wrote over 200 years ago, and his ideas never penetrated far in science because they weren’t fundamentally scientific in nature. Behaviorism was one psychological theory among many (Freudian, Jungian, etc) It was never broadly accepted and eventually went the way of the other two.

    Science is about objective truth. It doesn’t answer to polls.

    Yes, but when you need to consult science to make a policy decision, who are you going to ask? A minority of dissenters or a supermajority of the best scientists?

    in the case of man-made global warming, it is far more than 10% of scientists who dissent.

    Produce your numbers. There have been a few attempts to quantify it, but they were all controversial. Besides, whom do you count as scientists? One case in which a group of “concerned scientists” spoke up against the AGW thesis turned out to have petroleum geologists among their number. Furthermore, the best way to determine this is to let the scientists debate it in their councils, thrash everything out, then publish their joint conclusions — which is exactly what the NAS and the IPCC are doing.

    Frankly, the movement probably jumped the shark when it claimed that there was no scientific dissent and studiously ignored data contrary to their thesis

    Show me a quote from the NAS or the IPCC in which they claim that there is no scientific dissent. Show me the place in the IPCC where they ignored data.

    a thesis promulgated in large part by a college drop-out with zero scientific credentials.

    I don’t know whom you are referring to. The link you present seems to contradict your entire position. In any case, science is nowhere near so stupid as to depend on any single person. The whole climate change issue has been around for a long, long time. The underlying principle (the greenhouse effect) was discovered in 1824 and theoretically explained in 1895. I remember the prof in my physics class many years ago discussing the greenhouse effect and the likelihood that CO2 emissions would eventually result in temperature increases. This is simple, basic physics and anybody with an undergraduate degree in physics can see why climate change is almost inevitable when you increase greenhouse gas concentrations.

    I repeat my challenge: where are the errors in the IPCC report?

  11. First, the IPCC recognizes that the very idea of a warming trend is debatable, I quote from their 2001 report “it’s a signal in the noise problem.” That means the signal, the warming trend, is lost in the actual variability of the data.

    Al Gore’s recent remarks vis a vis “the debate is over” and “he’s an outlier,” both demean science and scientists. Very few debates are ever over in science. For the sake of argument let us say there is actually awarming trend. Then the first question is “what is the cause?” Well, how about the sun. Variations in solar radiation can completely explain a warming trend. The data of Bard and Lean at the NCDC web site confirm this.

    That Hansen et al. have glossed over this is convenient for them. It’s poor science at best.

  12. On a whim, I just checked my library and quickly came up with two items of interest.

    The first is from the book, GAIA, an Atlas of Planet Management, a strongly pro-environment publication. On page 116, it says:

    Carbon dioxide is now increasing, slowly but steadily… the result is a steady warming of our planet, projected to rise to a mean 3 degrees Centigrade within the lifetimes of our children…

    The publication date of this book is 1984.

    From the other side of the aisle, we have “Access to Energy”, a strongly pro-nuclear newsletter written by Petr Beckmann, billed as “A Pro-Science, Pro-Technology, Pro-Free Enterprise Monthly Newsletter”. In the March, 1982 issue, on page 2, it says:

    The long term cycle of solar activity may not be the dominant influence over the next few decades; that may come from the increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere… the evidence is mounting that an increasing CO2 concentration could lead to undesirable (though precisely unknown) climatic changes…

    So let’s dispense with this false claim that global warming is a new concept or that scientists have reversed course on it.

  13. Allen, you’re using the old 2001 report; you should be using the most recent report. Here’s a quote from their executive summary:

    The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to
    +2.4] W m-2.

    Next, why are you bringing up Al Gore? He’s not a scientist, and he didn’t write either the IPCC report or the NAS statement. Let’s stick with the science and leave aside the bystanders.

    Variations in solar radiation can completely explain a warming trend.

    Solar forcing is thoroughly discussed on pages 188-192 of the IPCC report. (That’s in chapter 2). You can download the whole IPCC report from the IPCC website. And their conclusion is:

    The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced
    from the TAR. The best estimate is +0.12 W m–2 (90%
    confidence interval: +0.06 to +0.30 W m–2). While there have
    been advances in the direct solar irradiance variation, there
    remain large uncertainties. The level of scientific understanding
    is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct
    irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray
    influences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11)

  14. “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the earth’s climate.”

    Thus, the reference to “global warming hysteria” is “extremely false”. It is not hysteria, it is well-developed and documented science.

    Then how come it sounds so hysterical when I read it?—“has already led to changes in Earth’s Climate.”

    Please…. It’s like ministers examining girls for birthmarks to prove demon possession: “Demon possession has already led to changes in these girls’ skin .

    Notice how they don’t say ‘warming’, they say ‘changes’. It’s not ‘Global Warming’ now, it’s “Climate Change” ‘cuz there is no consensus that ‘Global Warming’ is actually causing any ‘warming’ at all.

    There is no basis for honest skepticism of the general contours of climate change — that skepticism is, in the vast majority of cases, predicated upon political attitudes, not rational analysis.

    “Begging the Question”

    Definition: Fowler defines “begging the question” as the “fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself.”

    “Question” here does not mean “a sentence in interrogative form”. Rather, it means “the point at issue, the thing that the person is trying to prove”. The phrase is elucidated by William Fulke in “Heskins parleamant repealed” (1579): “O shameless beggar, that craveth no less than the whole controversy to be given him!” The OED’s first citation for “to beg the question” is from 1581.

    Common varieties of begging the question are paraphrase of the statement to be proved (“Telepathy cannot exist because direct transfer of thought between individuals is impossible”), and
    arguing in a circle (“The Bible must be true, because God wouldn’t lie to us; we know God is trustworthy, because it says so in the Bible”). Fowler gives two examples of non-circular question-begging:
    “that fox-hunting is not cruel, since the fox enjoys the fun, and that one must keep servants, since all respectable people do so”. Gowers notes that single words, such as “reactionary” and “victimization”, can be used in a question-begging way.

    The Latin term for the fallacy is petitio principii, a
    translation of the Greek to en archei aiteisthai=”at the
    beginning to assume”; but aiteisthai does literally mean “to beg”. The phrase can be traced back to Aristotle (4th century B.C.):
    “Begging or assuming the point at issue consists (to take the expression in its widest sense) in failing to demonstrate the required proposition. But there are several other ways in which this may happen; for example, if the argument has not taken
    syllogistic form at all […]. If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue.” (Prior Analytics II xvi)

    No, the great majority of dissenters are wrong. A tiny percentage are right. If you want to establish a principle that “the majority is often wrong, and the minority is often right”, we can all sorts of fun overturning just about everything and believing all sorts of nonsense.

    So lemme get this right, Dissent is Patriot, but not dissent with Global Warming?

    Flat-earthers are dissenters. UFO-philes are dissenters. Creationists are dissenters. Are you endorsing all these views?

    Hahahahaha! But at one time they were all the majority!

    Then dissenters to these things were proven right once the scientific method was applied.

  15. The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to
    +2.4] W m-2.

    But no one has actually proven the existence of anthropogenic warming or cooling–that is the theory!That’s just more circular reasoning or “begging the question”.

    In other words:

    “If humans could warm or cool the planet, then since humans did stuff since 1750, and the data shows there was warming (if you wanna believe the data) then the warming that humans did (if they did it) was a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to
    +2.4] W m-2.”

    It’s complete and total nonsense–nonsense on stilts! Just read it.

    People believe this because they want to believe it. Global Warmism, just like every other religious mass hysteria is a product of fear: fear of mortality.

  16. Put the link in your name-link, Op.

  17. By the way, let me make it clear that I don’t deny global warming. I just (a) have my doubts about humans’ contribution and (b) suspect that in the suddenly hysterical rush to judgment, intelligent contradictory voices are getting trampled. Keep in mind that the anthropocentric global warming proponents are demanding that the little people move back in time, away from lights, heat, air conditioning, easy transportation, readily available food, etc. I’m not going to get really excited until Gore, et al, move into 1500 sq. ft. apartments, buy a palm frond fan, sell their cars, and start living the way they’re demanding of the rest of us.

  18. Thanks for the tip, ymarsakar. But let me push my luck. Here’s the link to the IPCC reports:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

  19. Some of the questions that I like to pose to people who express certainty on the issue of man-made global warming are as follows:

    1) If we follow the Occam’s Razor principle, what is the most important and obvious factor to be concerned in global climate change.
    2) What is the most important greenhouse gas?
    3) What percentage of total greenhouse gases does CO2 constitute?
    4) Does atmospheric CO2 change follow or precede global warming?
    5) What percentage of total CO2 emissions are man-made?
    6) What role does cloud formation play in climate change?
    7) How do clouds form?
    8) How come none of the computerized climate models can predict climate change back in time?

    Usually, of course, they have no idea. A few actually research the questions. In most, I do detect a little less certainty about their own certainty.

  20. and start living the way they’re demanding of the rest of us.

    You are too demanding of loyalty from the brass, Book, in return for your own. Such an attitude is very American ; )

  21. Bookworm, I advise that you carefully differentiate between the science and the pushers. Yes, there are loads of people jumping on the global warming bandwagon, coming up with ways to take money from gullible people. Such scamsters should be denounced. But let’s not condemn the science because of the scamsters. This is not a monolithic bloc. That’s why I avoid reference to television weathermen or Al Gore or news reporters or any of the other bystanders. We need to focus carefully — and exclusively — on what the scientists themselves are saying. That takes some effort because, if you read the IPCC report, you’ll see that it’s tough slogging, full of acronyms and scientific terminology. But you’ll also note that they’re up front about the uncertainties, and many of the heart-stopping claims you see in the press are NOT substantiated by the IPCC reports. When I vote on a proposition in an election, I don’t rely on the yard signs to make my decision: I read the proposition for myself and read what both the proponents and the opponents have to say. I’m sure you do the same. I recommend the same approach with regard to climate change: pay no attention to the people screaming at each other. Go to the source and get the straight scoop.

    BTW, if you’d like a couple of other resources, I have two to suggest:

    (here we go with another link attempt!)

    Easily the best ongoing source of information is Real Climate. And if you want to see a good contrarian blog on climate change, check out Climate Audit Note that Steve McIntyre, the author of Climate Audit, never goes straight at the heart of the climate change thesis (apparently because he believes it can’t be substantiated). But he does a good job of picking away at little details. This is good stuff because it shows how science keeps itself honest. Much of Mr. McIntyre’s work is dismissed by scientists — but he (apparently) hits a base hit every now and then, and that’s good for all of us. No home runs yet, but it’s good to know that Mr. McIntyre is batting for the stands. If it can be done, he will.

    BTW, here’s a cute story about scientists cherishing diversity of opinion. During the Manhattan Project, somebody voiced a concern that, if the core temperatures of the fireball were high enough, they might be enough to trigger fusion reactions in the surrounding nuclei in the atmosphere, which theoretically might be capable of igniting the atmosphere and terminating all life on the planet. This prospect troubled Oppenheimer. So he assigned two of his top people to prove that it could happen. They labored away, and every now and then they’d present their latest calculations to the gathered top physicists. At every such meeting, one of the top guys would find a flaw in the calculation, so it was back to the drawing board. They kept at it right up until July 16th.

  22. Danny, let me take a stab at answering your questions:

    1) If we follow the Occam’s Razor principle, what is the most important and obvious factor to be concerned in global climate change.

    I don’t know what you mean by including Occam’s Razor here. The connection between it and the rest of the question escapes me, so I’ll just answer the question itself. But even that is difficult to interpret — by “factor” do you mean “causal agent” or “consequence” or what? I’ll assume the latter and give you the maddening answer that it varies from place to place. For low-lying countries like Bangladesh, Netherlands, and many of the coral atoll islands, the most important factor is increases in sea level. For many farmers, the most important factor is dessication. For some people, the problem will be flooding.

    2) What is the most important greenhouse gas?

    Again, there’s no simple answer because the term “important” is vague. Water vapor provides the biggest chunk of IR absorption, and methane has the highest absorption per mole, and CO2 is the one we have the most control over.

    3) What percentage of total greenhouse gases does CO2 constitute?

    Again, the answer depends on the answer to the question “percentage of WHAT?” Moles? megatons? Watts per square meter of radiant forcing? I believe that water vapor is responsible for most IR absorption.

    4) Does atmospheric CO2 change follow or precede global warming?

    Both. Increases in ocean water temperatures release CO2 stored in sediments, increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect.

    5) What percentage of total CO2 emissions are man-made?

    I don’t have that number on my fingertips but I know it’s small. Be careful what conclusions you draw from that. You can easily make a logical blunder.

    6) What role does cloud formation play in climate change?

    Many roles. The primary effect is to increase the earth’s albedo, diminishing radiative forcing. One of the big disputes for many years has been the degree to which increases in temperature will yield higher cloud formation, which in turn will buffer radiative forcing. The matter remains debatable, but at this time we don’t see cloud formation as a strong buffer against temperature increases. Remember, cloud formation is strongest in the low latitudes where there’s more water vapor, but the low latitudes will show the least increase in temperature. Meanwhile, at polar latitudes, increased temperatures result in decreased ice and snow cover, which DECREASES albedo — accelerating the radiative forcing. So, which factor dominates? Again, the answer is complicated, because it depends on WHEN you do the analysis. In general, I believe that the polar effect is the greater.

    7) How do clouds form?

    Air containing an adequate number of seeds is cooled below its dew point. Water vapor condenses on the seeds and forms tiny droplets, which we see as clouds.

    How come none of the computerized climate models can predict climate change back in time?

    But they can — unless you’re talking about going WAY back in time.

  23. I blogged about the same thing (albeit from Lucianne.com rather than American Thinker), then saw your post. Great minds…

  24. Don’t make the mistake of arguing against religious hysteria with data….

    Global Warming or “Climate Change”, whatever that is, is based on faith.

    I think that old pinko Arthur Miller wrote stories about this–just substitute “global warming deniers” for “Commies” and The Crucible reads just the same….

    Perhaps better.

    If the boomers weren’t getting old, we wouldn’t even be talking about this non-issue.

    I’ve been hearing about how the earth is going to be destroyed because of something I do, don’t do, or believe, my entire life. Now it’s just background noise, like the ‘warming trend’ in the climate data….

  25. From “The Oregonian”

    CHICAGO — In a bold move to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the Portland area, city officials plan to charge builders hundreds of dollars for each new home that is not extremely energy efficient. And it would require, as part of every existing home sale, that an energy efficiency report be done by home inspectors.

    The left applies the concept of cui bono to every issue and policy except ‘global warming’. Why is that?

  26. Oh my.

    “Scientists cherish diversity of opinion because they know that it’s what keeps them honest. The claims of suppression of knowledge are false.”

    How about this:
    Scientists SHOULD cherish diversity of opinion because they know that it’s what keeps them honest.

    As for the following statement,’The claims of suppression of knowledge are false,’ I guess that’s because you say so. Right?

    You require proof that more than 10% of scientists dissent, but where do you offer proof that ONLY 10 percent dissent?

    Global warming hysteria is “extremely false” because a brochure says so?? That may be good enough for you, but it does very little for me.

    “There is no basis for honest skepticism”, apparently, because the “majority of cases, (it is) predicated upon political attitudes”.

    I have to say, Gray has a point. Where is the proof that skepticism is based on political attitudes? And why is it that we are being asked to accept this assumption, but for only one side of the debate? Let’s talk about the political attitudes on the other side.

    I certainly understand the desire of an advocate of these positions to “avoid reference to television weathermen or Al Gore or news reporters and other bystanders”.

    Especially since you want to consider political motives of skeptics but not political motives of advocates. But just as much as your side would like to talk about the monetary contributions of Exxon etc., the other side would like to talk about the monetary contributions controlled by politicians and the UN. You worry about those who have recieved a paycheck from energy companies? Fine. I worry about those who recieve paychecks from politicians and universities.

    I’m pleased you found a cute story about scientists cherishing diversity of opinion during the Manhattan Project. It’s a shame that this attitude isn’t as prevalent today.

    Some people seem to demand proof from opponents while at the same time they are content to rest their arguments on unproven statements. Why do you assume others must prove you wrong? Perhaps you should prove them wrong. Or better yet, prove yourself right. Or even better than that, don’t imply that it is settled and provable at all.

  27. Tap, please, before you start slinging around all these wild accusations, just read the IPCC report. You’ll see what I mean about scientists cherishing diversity of opinion. The IPCC report is full of statements regarding disagreements, minority positions, and so forth.

    If you have any evidence of data being suppressed, bring it forward.

    Global warming hysteria is “extremely false” because a brochure says so??

    First, it would help if you structure your sentences more carefully. Second, perhaps you failed to notice the people who wrote the brochure: the National Academy of Science. Are you more authoritative than they are?

    Where is the proof that skepticism is based on political attitudes?

    You’re absolutely right. I was speculating. However, I’ll note that there’s an extremely strong and very suspicious correlation between AGW skepticism and conservative political stances. Why oh why do people let their politics interfere with purely scientific issues? The odds are that most of the conservative readers here are in favor of nuclear power. Why? Because they understand the technology? In a few cases, that’s possible. But my experience is that neither supporters nor opponents of nuclear power understand any of the scientific issues. They just sling slogans at each other. The same thing is happening with climate change. Left wingers believe in it because they’re left wing, not because they understand the science. Right wingers reject it because they’re right wing, not because they understand the politics. Please, please, people, stop this idiocy!!! Just study the science and make a truly independent decision. And if you’re unwilling to take the time to make an independent decision, then at least place your trust in reputable scientific bodies rather than politicians, preachers, or political parties.

    In any case, there is no rational basis for denying the basic proposition of anthropogenic climate change. There’s lots of room for debating the finer points, but I’ll state flatly: anybody who rejects the basic proposition is doing so for reasons other than pure rationalism.

    And why is it that we are being asked to accept this assumption, but for only one side of the debate?

    I never wrote anything of the kind. I am just as happy to keep Al Gore out of this as I am to keep the idiot TV weatherman quoted above out of it. Let’s concentrate on the science, OK? Let’s talk about the IPCC report and the NAS reports, OK? That’s the substance. Have you read the IPCC report?

    But just as much as your side would like to talk about the monetary contributions of Exxon etc.

    “My” side? I am not approaching this issue from a left-wing perspective, I am approaching it from a scientific perspective. And I challenge you to point to any statements I made about monetary contributions from industry.

    You worry about those who have recieved a paycheck from energy companies?

    No, I don’t. I concentrate on the science, not the soap operas. Why won’t you?

    I’m pleased you found a cute story about scientists cherishing diversity of opinion during the Manhattan Project. It’s a shame that this attitude isn’t as prevalent today

    That’s a lie. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Read the IPCC report! Here are a few quotes demonstrating the appreciation of diversity of opinion:

    page 134: “For the other climate change drivers, RF
    is often estimated using general circulation model
    (GCM) data employing a variety of methodologies
    (Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Stuber et al., 2001b;
    Tett et al., 2002; Shine et al., 2003; Hansen et
    al., 2005; Section 2.8.3). Often, alternative RF calculation
    methodologies that do not directly follow the TAR definition of
    a stratospheric-adjusted RF are used; the most important ones
    are illustrated in Figure 2.2.”

    Page 140: “Therefore, using 1750
    may slightly overestimate the RF, as the changes in the mixing
    ratios of CO2, CH4 and N2O after the end of this naturally
    cooler period may not be solely attributable to anthropogenic
    emissions. Using 1860 as an alternative start date for the RF
    calculations would reduce the LLGHG RF by roughly 10%.”

    Page 142: “However, as reported by
    Bergamaschi et al. (2005), national inventories based on ‘bottom-
    up’ studies can grossly underestimate emissions and ‘top-
    down’ measurement-based assessments of reported emissions
    will be required for verification.”

    Page 142: “This was attributed to a decrease in emissions from an
    isotopically heavy source such as biomass burning (Lowe et al.,
    1997; Mak et al., 2000), although these data were not confirmed
    by lower frequency measurements from the same period made
    by Francey et al. (1999).”

    But don’t take my word for it: read the IPCC report!

    Some people seem to demand proof from opponents while at the same time they are content to rest their arguments on unproven statements. Why do you assume others must prove you wrong? Perhaps you should prove them wrong. Or better yet, prove yourself right. Or even better than that, don’t imply that it is settled and provable at all.

    I have been waving the IPCC report in your faces for some time now. That’s where all the evidence is. I gave you a link to it. Read the evidence. It’s all there. I have been begging you skeptics to step up to the plate and tell me what you don’t like about the IPCC report. Yet so far not one person here has been willing to talk turkey. Is there no one here capable of actually addressing the issue?

  28. Ophiuchus,
    You haven’t been “waving the IPCC report in your faces for some time now”. It’s been only 18 hours. I’m grateful for the link but I haven’t had any time to read it. I’m sure you don’t mean that I should spend just ten minutes or so perusing it? Because I’ve got no other time right now.

    Rest assured, I will. I should have time this weekend. And I like to think I’m quite good at spotting, in any information in any format, what is not being said. If this is the document that provides the strongest argument FOR global warming, it will be very useful to read indeed.

  29. I would like to see any worthwhile links, aswell, providing evidence for the other side of the argument: that global warming, true or no, need not be FIXED in the next forty years or so, because the claims of its effects are not correct.

    I’ve heard rumblings that temperatures on other planets have been rising recently. I’d love to see hard evidence on that rumor, as it’s one of the strongest arguments in favor of solar cycles.

    Any information on any sort of modeling concerning the Little Ice Age in the 16th-17th century, or the astonishing warming of Greenland that allowed numerous Viking settlements there, only to see them abandoned when cooling subsequently happened, in the 800-1200 A.D time range, would be helpful, too.

    I believe Ophiuchus is interested not on vague pronouncements but in debating the actual information that is out there. (At least I hope he’s interested in such a debate.)

  30. Ditto for me. I should have more time to respond after the end of my work-week.

  31. testing for double post

  32. You haven’t been “waving the IPCC report in your faces for some time now”.

    Now you can clearly see why my method of arguing philosophy, a[s]sumptions, and logic premises are so much prefered by me.

  33. All these scrolls of figures, numbers, facts, and procl[a]mations are useless, in the end.

  34. proclamations

  35. “President Bush has the answer for global warming.

    He’s going to send 20,000 troops to the sun.”

    Things I do to conserve energy:
    1. mow my small yard with a push mower
    2. use cold water tide for laundry
    3. ride a motorcycle weather permitting to get to and from (great freaking gas mileage on these motorized bicycles)
    4. use compact fluorescent light bulb’s as my old bulbs burn out
    5. in the winter, kick the thermostat down a couple degree’s and wear a sweater. oh the humanity!

    My instincts tell me that Global Warming is a load of hooey. Additional I should add that I dont see much harm in the perputation of Global Warming Hysteria.

    I have said it before and I will say it again, lets end our dependence on mid east oil. Everyone can pitch in towards that effort. Be it ‘save the planet’ or ‘lets get out the f_ck out of the middle east’

  36. Mike, I’m very pleased to learn that you’ll be tackling the IPCC report. I warn you, it’s dense reading, but that’s because it’s The Real Thing. Start with the Executive Summary, then pick one topic that most interests you. Chapter 2 covers changes in atmospheric constituents and how they affect climate. Chapter 3 is about the empirical evidence that climate is changing. Chaper 8 is about climate models. Chapter 10 is about predictions for the future. Each chapter starts with an executive summary and an FAQ section — you can get most of the meat you want from those, which should keep your reading load down to an acceptable level. Then you can dive into the internals of the chapter to check out particular issues.

    On planetary temperature changes: I can’t find any source material on that. I recall looking it over about a year ago, and determining that the whole thing was bogus. It started with some data from Mars indicating some temperature increases, but I don’t think those increases were global and we certainly don’t have a solid enough time series to draw much in the way of conclusions. There might be a case for Martian global warming, but if so, it’s weak. On the other hand, the stuff about the other planets was all hornswoggle. The temperatures in the upper Jovian atmosphere are controlled by the weather underneath. Jupiter is a net emitter of radiation, not an absorber, so any activity there is impossible to assign to the sun. And there simply wasn’t any data on other planets to corroborate the claims.

    As to the Little Ice Age, there’s mountains of data on this topic. The broader version of it is called “Paleoclimatology” and is thoroughly covered in Chapter 6 of the IPCC report. The basic story is this: yes, there have been lots of variations in climate. The temperatures go up, the temperatures go down. But these historical variations are slower than what we’re experiencing now. And mostly they operate at lower average temperatures than we are seeing. That is, we’re already warmer than the historical average, and the temperature is rising, not falling.

    If you want to see some decent contrarian arguments, I suggest that you look at Climate Audit, which I linked to earlier. The great majority of the contrarian stuff I have seen on the web is dreck. You will also see some robust debate on Real Climate. A good example is this discussion of the role of the oceans in absorbing CO2. What’s important to notice here is that there are 397 responses to the article, and if you read them you’ll see people poking and prodding at the content, asking tough questions, challenging fine points, arguing over the details. If you have the time, read through the whole thing and your misconceptions about scientists as zombies marching in unison will forever vanish.

    My instincts tell me that Global Warming is a load of hooey.

    Instincts are really good for avoiding lions, selecting mates, and tracking prey. They’re not so good when dealing with highly complex scientific issues. For this class of problems, reason is the only way to fly.

  37. Actually, you won’t read about this in the MSM, but the Bush Administration (a.k.a. the “worst administration in history”) has invested heavily in alternate fuels (i.e., “non-ooooiil” energy sources) resources by restoring funds to DOE that were heavily cut during the 1992-2000 Clinton Administration (are you reading this Ophi?) and subsequently restored during the Bush II administration. See:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/budget/energy.pdf
    http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/doe07pf1.pdf

    The current flap about corn-derived ethanol notwithstanding (the subject of enormous misinformation), corn-based ethanol is just a stepping stone toward a cellulose-derived ethanol industry. Combined with biodiesel and new car battery technologies under development, we can now anticipate cars that will be able to travel 100 miles on less-than 1/2 gallon of petroleum products in the near future. This is when the world will achieve true energy iindependence from the Middle East. As I recall, transportation accounts for about 75% of all liquid petroleum usage in the U.S.

    This is not to diminish all the other alternate fuels technologies under development, including nuclear and coal liquifaction.

  38. First, it would help if you structure your sentences more carefully. Second, perhaps you failed to notice the people who wrote the brochure: the National Academy of Science. Are you more authoritative than they are?

    They aren’t Climatologists. It’s an inherently political organization:

    “Appeal to Authority”

    Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

    Description of Appeal to Authority
    An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

    Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
    Person A makes claim C about subject S.
    Therefore, C is true.
    This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

    This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

    When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

    Left wingers believe in it because they’re left wing, not because they understand the science. Right wingers reject it because they’re right wing, not because they understand the politics.

    No, no:

    Conservatives understand the politics all too well: Leftists have been using pseudo-scientific claims to enslave people since Mao was knee-high to a Most Honorable Grasshoppah. Lysenkoism?
    Please….

    In any case, there is no rational basis for denying the basic proposition of anthropogenic climate change.

    “Begging the Question”

    “O shameless beggar, that craveth no less than the whole controversy to be given him!” The OED’s first citation for “to beg the question” is from 1581.

    Fowler gives two examples of non-circular question-begging: “that fox-hunting is not cruel, since the fox enjoys the fun, and that one must keep servants, since all respectable people do so”. Gowers notes that single words, such as “reactionary” and “victimization”, can be used in a question-begging way.

    I never wrote anything of the kind. I am just as happy to keep Al Gore out of this as I am to keep the idiot TV weatherman quoted above out of it.

    I imagine you do. Yet, that bloated oaf is, in fact, the standard bearer for your Global Warming ‘science’…..

    page 134: “For the other climate change drivers, RF
    is often estimated using general circulation model
    (GCM) data employing a variety of methodologies
    (Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Stuber et al., 2001b;
    Tett et al., 2002; Shine et al., 2003; Hansen et
    al., 2005; Section 2.8.3). Often</B, alternative RF calculation
    methodologies that do not directly follow the TAR definition of
    a stratospheric-adjusted RF are used; the most important ones
    are illustrated in Figure 2.2.”

    Page 140: “Therefore, using 1750
    may slightly overestimate the RF, as the changes in the mixing
    ratios of CO2, CH4 and N2O after the end of this naturally
    cooler period may not be solely attributable to anthropogenic
    emissions. Using 1860 as an alternative start date for the RF
    calculations would reduce the LLGHG RF by roughly 10%.”

    Page 142: “However, as reported by
    Bergamaschi et al. (2005), national inventories based on ‘bottom-
    up’ studies can grossly underestimate emissions and ‘top-
    down’ measurement-based assessments of reported emissions
    will be required for verification.”

    Page 142: “This was attributed to a decrease in emissions from an
    isotopically heavy source such as biomass (trees, they mean ‘trees’ here; hahahaha!) burning (Lowe et al.,
    1997; Mak et al., 2000), although these data were not confirmed
    by lower frequency measurements from the same period made
    by Francey et al. (1999).”

    But don’t take my word for it: read the IPCC report!

    Omigosh, Ophie! You’re right! It reads just like every environmental scare-story of the last 40 years!

    I’m an engineer. I read scientific and engineering papers all day. There are enough ‘weasel words’ in there to make it largely meaningless. Heck, I wouldn’t even bomb Iran on that kind of disseminating information and tentative conclusions!

    How come they sound less sure of their theory than you do?

    I have been waving The Koran report in your faces for some time now. That’s where all the evidence is. I gave you a link to it. Read the evidence. It’s all there. I have been begging you skeptics to step up to the plate and tell me what you don’t like about The Koran. Yet so far not one person here has been willing to talk felafel. Is there no one here capable of actually addressing the issue?

    B’ismillah! Such a worthy and faithful Friday sermon, Imam!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: