Connecting the Global Warming Dots


It was all over the news this weekend – here’s one example – scientists now believe we are at the upper end of the range for how rapidly global warming is occurring and underscore the need to act sooner rather than later.

To make the local connection, 39% of Greenhouse Gases in Multnomah County come from transportation.


162 responses to “Connecting the Global Warming Dots”

  1. This will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.

    For instance:
    * Remember the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in 400 years, perhaps in 1000 years?
    Oops, they made an error in the data. 1998 is now considered tied with 1934.
    (not that warmest in 1000 years is relevant, considering the earth’s BILLION year history)
    see: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    * Remember most of the warmest years occurred in the 1990s? Well not any more – they are scattered through the century. Here they are by decade: 1910s…2, 1920s…1, 1930s…2, 1950s…1, 1990s…2, 2000s…1

    * I presume you all know that Al Gore’s famous temperature chart that shows stable temperature for 1000 years then a sudden rise has been shown to be just plain wrong (I believe it is a fraud – when you remove “strip bark” trees from the data set, the chart shown nothing unusual; when you feed random data to the computer program, it gives that shape about 80% of the time)

    * The oceans are not rising at any unusual rate.

    * Greenland ice continues to increase, not decrease. Viking farms are still under ice.

    * Antarctic ice continues to build.

    Here is a nice little video in 4 parts, from a real scientist, not some political hack:
    youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
    youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
    youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

    Here are some items from the New Your Times:

    * All who know the story of the search for the Northweat Passage will have no doubt that Capt. Ronald Amundsen and his little vessel, the Gjoa, have earned a conspicuous place in the last chapter of the book. … He had the boldness to conceive, the courage to attempt, and the goad luck to achieve the first voyage by a single vessel through the Northwest Passage; – Dec 10, 1905

    * Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of Encroaching Ice Age – Oct 7, 1912

    * Melting Polar Ice Caps to Rise Level of Seas and Flood the Continents – May 15, 1932

    * Sergeant Larsen, with a crew composed partly of landlubbers successfully completed the 10,000-mile trip across the top of the world from Vancouver to Halifax. – May 5, 1946

    * Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be An Open Sea – Feb 20, 1969

    * Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing: Major Cooling May Be Ahead – May 21, 1975

    Thanks
    JK

  2. BTW, that UN report is not written by scientists it is written by politicians and perports to describe science.

    A number of scientists have protested its many distortions.

    Thanks
    JK

  3. “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of Encroaching Ice Age – Oct 7, 1912”

    So your point is that almost 100 years ago some climate scientist made a prediction that turned out to not be true, so therefor we should distrust all climate scientists? Guess what? Some of the people that “have feelings about mass transit” have made statements that weren’t true as well, so I guess that means that I shouldn’t trust you either…

  4. Actually the point is that “scientists” have been wrong for decades, why should we believe them now, just because they wrap up their hocus-pocus in computer models?

    The reality is that whatever the current trend is, they simply predict that it will continue forever – there is a billion dollar industry for predicting disaster, with little research money for dissenting.

    BTW, what did you tink of the video?
    Or the fact that we have been in a cooling trend since 1998?

    Thanks
    JK

  5. Actually the point is that “scientists” have been wrong for decades, why should we believe them now, just because they wrap up their hocus-pocus in computer models?

    And if I didn’t already have good reason to ignore anything Jim says, he just provided it. No comprehension of or respect for the scientific method when it leads to an ideologically inconvenient conclusion.

    The reality is that whatever the current trend is, they simply predict that it will continue forever – there is a billion dollar industry for predicting disaster, with little research money for dissenting.

    Yeah, right. Of course, affected industries never offer up money for bought-and-paid-for “scientific opinions” to try to get them off the hook. For unscrupulous scientists, the money is in denial. Whoring their credentials to big-money interests to deny there’s a problem. This is The Tobacco Institute all over again.

    And BTW:

    * Greenland ice continues to increase, not decrease. Viking farms are still under ice.

    * Antarctic ice continues to build.

    It doesn’t matter if the ice pack is getting thicker in some places. When the atmosphere warms, evaporation increases and those areas that still are cold enough to get snow, get more. What matters is the coverage of the ice sheet, not its thickness. And the coverage is dwindling at a rather alarming rate.

    This will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.

    Can you name any other “scientific fraud” for comparison purposes? I’m not talking about the actions of an unscrupulous individual or two like the “Piltdown Man” hoax, but a “fraud” that was perpetrated by an entire branch of the scientific community over decades of published, peer-reviewed research? I can’t think of any.

  6. Like many of the usual global-warming-denial arguments JK presented, the 1998 vs. 1934 one is a popular “gotcha” — until, of course, it is analysed.

    By cherry picking just US data, and then comparing just two specific years, JK seems to imply therefore that the globe (that would be “globe” as in “Global”) is not warming.

    For those who are curious, there is an article on this whole fuss over at realclimate.org called 1934 and all that, which goes into the reason the statistics are the way they are, and the significance of the denialist argument.

    It also happens to include a nice graph of _global_ temperature via a land-ocean index, which shows (guess what) an increase in global temperatures.

    – Bob R.

  7. Hey Bob, the USHCN data that I used is considered the best in the world. The data you cite is consoioidered second rate.

    Also the USHCN is maintained by Jum Hansen, well known warmer, so you know it is the best.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. “Hey Bob, the USHCN data that I used is considered the best in the world. The data you cite is consoioidered second rate.”

    It might be best in the lower 48, but since it doesn’t cover the world, it isn’t the best in the the world. And the lower 48 isn’t the world, you should get out more.

  9. Matthew Says: “Hey Bob, the USHCN data that I used is considered the best in the world. The data you cite is consoioidered second rate.”
    It might be best in the lower 48, but since it doesn’t cover the world, it isn’t the best in the the world. And the lower 48 isn’t the world, you should get out more.
    JK: Are you saying we should use crappy data because good data is not available? You should read real science a bit more.

    Thanks
    JK

  10. djk: Actually the point is that “scientists” have been wrong for decades, why should we believe them now, just because they wrap up their hocus-pocus in computer models?

    And if I didn’t already have good reason to ignore anything Jim says, he just provided it. No comprehension of or respect for the scientific method when it leads to an ideologically inconvenient conclusion.
    JK: You appear to be ignorant of the fact that the scientific method requires a testable prediction. What successful predictions have the warmers made? (I hope you noticed that the temperature has been falling since 1998, using the best available data – the USHCN)

    djk: Yeah, right. Of course, affected industries never offer up money for bought-and-paid-for “scientific opinions” to try to get them off the hook. For unscrupulous scientists, the money is in denial. Whoring their credentials to big-money interests to deny there’s a problem. This is The Tobacco Institute all over again.
    JK: Pure Goebbels – if you can’t attack the data, attack the messenger. Please show us a comparison of the money on both sides – be sure to notice that most of the government’s BILLION annually goes to support the “sky is falling” warmers like Hansen, Mann etc. Don’t forget to tell us how much Al Gore is making from his mutual fund and “being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.”

    djk: It doesn’t matter if the ice pack is getting thicker in some places.
    JK: Actually it does – the point is that the total ice is increasing, not decreasing. That means that there will be no contribution to sea level rise. BTW did you know that weather has always been highly variable, ice shifts around etc?

    djk: When the atmosphere warms, evaporation increases
    JK: Water evaporates. Ice does not evaporate it sublimates.

    djk: and those areas that still are cold enough to get snow, get more.
    JK: It is more about moisture content than about temperature.

    Did any of your nutty sources bother to tell you that the Greenland ice sheet would take thousands of years to melt, even at the upper limit of the UN’s silly predictions?

    djk: What matters is the coverage of the ice sheet, not its thickness. And the coverage is dwindling at a rather alarming rate.
    JK: Says who? Quote me something more credible than AL Gore about the Greenland Ice Sheet.

    djk: This will go down as the biggest scientific fraud of all times.
    Can you name any other “scientific fraud” for comparison purposes? I’m not talking about the actions of an unscrupulous individual or two like the “Piltdown Man” hoax,
    JK: That is why I called it the biggest.

    djk: but a “fraud” that was perpetrated by an entire branch of the scientific community over decades of published, peer-reviewed research? I can’t think of any.
    JK: Maybe I should have said unprecedented.
    BTW, you are showing you lack of knowledge of the field by emphasizing the peer-reviewed part. In this case the peers are all buddies, so the process failed. See the Wegman report, page 4, for details:
    In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.

    Thanks
    JK

  11. Bob R. By cherry picking just US data,
    JK: Although badly flawed, the USHSN data is the most reliable the world – the data from other countries are much worse. (It seems that the better the data you get, the less warming it shows.)

    Bob R. and then comparing just two specific years,
    JK: What the hell are you talking about? Your side claimed that 1998 was the warmest year in a millennia. I merely pointed out that the latest revision of the best data shows that your claimed warmest year, 1998, is now thought to be tied with one (and only one) other year – 1934. Hence I mentioned 1998 and 1934. Are you having trouble with English comprehension?

    Bob R. JK seems to imply therefore that the globe (that would be “globe” as in “Global”) is not warming
    JK: The fact is that you side had three major headline grabbing claims:
    1. 1998 was the warmest year in a millennia. – Lost due to finding errors in the data manipulations done by a warmer.
    2. The “hockey stick”– Shown wrong by McIntyre. McIntyre was verified by NAS scientists.
    3. The 1990s has most of the warmest years ever — Not after the data errors were fixed.
    Your side has lost all its headlines. You just haven’t looked deep enough to realize that there is no case for catastrophic, man caused, global warming. There is a big difference between the “word is warming” and the “world is careening out of control.”

    Bob R. For those who are curious, there is an article on this whole fuss over at realclimate.org called 1934 and all that, which goes into the reason the statistics are the way they are, and the significance of the denialist argument.

    It also happens to include a nice graph of _global_ temperature via a land-ocean index, which shows (guess what) an increase in global temperatures.

    JK: Of course realclimate.org is the site run by the guy that fabricated the thoroughly discredited “hockey stick”
    But since you bring it up, don’t miss the claim that CO2 DOES NOT INITIATE global warming:
    At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)
    The site then goes on to say that CO2 could have continued the warming. Well, so could have the original, unknown, cause. (You don’t suppose it could be the sun do you?)

    It also admits that water is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2:
    . . . the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!). (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

    PS: The next bombshell will be that even the USHCN data exaggerates warming. When you look only at the best stations in the USHCN, you find only a fraction of the warming shown by the whole network. By best stations, I mean weather stations that are NOT surrounded by parking lots, air conditioner outlets etc. They are supposed to be in the middle of a open, grassy field at least 200′ in dia. I hope you can appreciate the difference.

    Thanks
    JK

  12. Pure Goebbels – if you can’t attack the data, attack the messenger. Please show us a comparison of the money on both sides – be sure to notice that most of the government’s BILLION annually goes to support the “sky is falling” warmers like Hansen, Mann etc. Don’t forget to tell us how much Al Gore is making from his mutual fund and “being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.”

    What utter nonsense. The Guardian (among many other sources) has reported special interest groups paying for articles to “undermine” scientific research. The “billions” spent through government grants are not outcome-determined; the money is issued prior to the research being conducted, not after-the-fact as a reward for researchers producing the result the government wants. If you have reliable evidence that government funding is issued based on researchers justifying pre-determined results, present it.

    (I hope you noticed that the temperature has been falling since 1998, using the best available data – the USHCN)

    And you asked BOB if he had trouble with English comprehension??? Bob already told you: you’re using data from the lower 48 states — something like 2% of the earth’s surface area. And you keep using it, even though climate change is a global issue.

    Did any of your nutty sources bother to tell you that the Greenland ice sheet would take thousands of years to melt, even at the upper limit of the UN’s silly predictions?

    It won’t take the entire ice sheet melting to cause a significant rise in sea level. Loss of the parts around the edge is what matters. As of 2006, Greenland’s melt was raising global sea level about 1/2 millimeter per year. That sounds like a very small number, only about four inches per century if it doesn’t change (and I hope the rate slows, but it could accelerate) … but that’s just Greenland. Glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula are shrinking and the West Antarctic ice sheet shows signs of melting as well. Raising sea levels even a foot or so could have catastrophic effects on our coastal cities.

  13. Since you mentioned the money, you may like this (Al Gore just became a partner in venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, Miasole and Ausra are backed by Kleiner, Perkins):
    Two portfolio companies in the solar energy field, Miasole and Ausra, should benefit if a House provision requiring investor-owned utilities to generate 15% of their power from wind, solar or geothermal sources becomes law. The same is true for Altarock Energy, a Kleiner-backed geothermal company. Lux Research analyst Ying Wu reports that “company valuations will take a pretty big hit” in Miasole’s market segment if Washington turns off the subsidy spigot.

    To put it another way, Kleiner’s “risk-taking” here isn’t all economic. When everything is going according to plan, do venture capitalists normally turn to a politician/filmmaker to help them cash out of engineering firms?

    Nope, but then again alternative energy has never fit the usual venture model. Jack Biddle, co-founder of Novak Biddle Venture Partners, says there’s a reason few start-up companies try to build commercial jetliners. “Large, complex systems with slow deployment cycles do not play to venture’s strengths. The whole idea with venture-backed companies is speed, speed, speed.” Mr. Biddle says the size and complexity of energy systems “make 787s look like tinker toys. You need lots of capital, lots of time, lots of people.”

    Mr. Gore seems to grasp the scale of the challenge, and the need for government help, telling Fortune magazine, “What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Project and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally.” That’s the kind of “green” vision that will require a lot of greenbacks.
    (From: opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010884, emphasis added)

    Translation: Its all about money & Gore will make millions off of the panic he created and you are helping him. You are also helping the nuclear industry as coal must be shut down to stop CO2

    Thanks
    JK
    Light rail costs too much does too little

  14. RE: Pure Goebbels – if you can’t attack the data, attack the messenger. Please show us a comparison of the money on both sides – be sure to notice that most of the government’s BILLION annually goes to support the “sky is falling” warmers like Hansen, Mann etc. Don’t forget to tell us how much Al Gore is making from his mutual fund and “being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.”

    JK: Still waiting for:
    * Money on both sides.
    * Al Gore’s income.
    * Credible journal refrence, not popular press, support for your antarctic & Greenland melting claims.

    BTW, one has to submit a proposal in order to get research money. They just don’t send a million and say go out and research something. If you propose to debunk warming you have little chance of getting money from the government. (Al Gore even got one guy fired for actually wanting to measure UV during the Ozone Hole scare.)

    Thanks
    JK

  15. You don’t want to accept summaries of science journal articles from respected, reputable sources like National Geographic or New Scientist as credible, that’s up to you.

    I’m not wasting my time pointing you to the sources already referenced in the posts I cited. Besides, tracing their reports to the source would make any difference. You’ve obviously put time looking through realclimate.org, and cherry-picked specific sentences (free from surrounding context) to support your “argument” while ignoring everything that didn’t fit into your predetermined conclusion.

    And by the way, government money “to support the sky is falling warmers” = $0. Researchers received government funding in exchange for proposals. A person who proposes to investigate ways to measure the impact of changing C02 levels on global climate might get funding, but the funding is not tied to a specific outcome of their research. Someone who “proposes to debunk global warming” obviously isn’t going to get funded because their proposal has nothing to do with science.

    I’m done here.

  16. Those who cling to the IPCC/Gore alamist view and deny the extensive science which contradicts it, are not using critical thinking skills.
    Here’s is possibly the most comprehensive piece, with sources, for a better understanding and an easy dislogding of one’s blind faith in human global warming.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf

    ,,,in no case yet has any climate-sensitive environmental
    parameter been shown to be changing at a rate that exceeds its
    historic natural rate of change,
    ,,,views that differ from the IPCC alarmist consensus are suppressed or otherwise discounted. Achieving a balanced view on climate change therefore demands that an interested party
    seek out the sort of informed but informal discussion that can be found amongst the following links.

    ,,,Special pleadings aside, therefore, the evidence for dangerous
    human-caused global warming forced by human carbon dioxide
    emissions is extremely weak.

    ,,,,both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are close to mass balance and the interiors of both have cooled over recent decades.
    ,,,,, the high quality MSU satellite data,,,signal not only the absence of substantial
    human-induced warming by recording similar temperatures in
    1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of
    the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public – a test
    that the hypothesis fails.

  17. Here’s is possibly the most comprehensive piece, with sources, for a better understanding and an easy dislogding of one’s blind faith in human global warming.

    One pdf file? The fact is that virtually every reputable scientist with actual training in climatology agrees global warming is happening.

    Now, collective scientific judgments aren’t always correct. So its possible they have got it wrong. But what are the consequences of that compared to the consequences if the vast majority of scientists are correct and the skeptics are wrong?

    The fact is, based on the current best available science, we need to act now to prevent catastrophe. Or we can wait and see how much of the ice cap melts and how quickly.

  18. Ross Williams Here’s is possibly the most comprehensive piece, with sources, for a better understanding and an easy dislogding of one’s blind faith in human global warming.

    One pdf file?
    JK: That is a nice summary of just how crappy Al Gore’s line really is. It covers all of the major flaws in the warmer’s case, leaving nothing left, but a few, mostly false, “sky is falling” claims about polar bears, Greenland ice and the arctic ocean. If the reading is too much for you, here is the video (in 4 parts). (But keep in mind you are watching a scientist, not some political hack): youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8 youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaYyoutube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

    Ross Williams The fact is that virtually every reputable scientist with actual training in climatology agrees global warming is happening.
    JK: That simply is not true. If you think it is true, give us a peer reviewed source, not some whacked out enviro publication.

    Ross Williams Now, collective scientific judgments aren’t always correct. So its possible they have got it wrong.
    JK: What “collective scientific judgments”? Prove it with a peer reviewed study.

    There has been an intense campaign of distortions, hidden data and outright lies by the warmers. Fortunately, good scientists are starting to wake up to the dangers of the false belief in warming and coming out.

    Ross Williams But what are the consequences of that compared to the consequences if the vast majority of scientists are correct and the skeptics are wrong?
    JK: The consequences of cutting carbon will devastate our standard of living. Something I suspect that you are looking forward to. What “ vast majority of scientists”? Prove it with a good, peer reviewed study or quit spreading falsities.

    Ross Williams The fact is, based on the current best available science, we need to act now to prevent catastrophe.
    JK: Lets review the “best available science”:
    Claim: “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year” WRONG! it was a statistical error by Mann in a peer reviewed journal. See the Wegman report. Or just look at the yearly USHCNdata. 1998 is not ties with 1934.

    Claim: The warmest years of the century are in the 1990s. WRONG! Ten warmest years by decade: 1910s…2, 1920s…1, 1930s…2, 1950s…1, 1990s…2, 2000s…1 From: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    Claim: The “hockey stick” that features so prominently in Al’s movie – it showed stable temperatures for 1000 years with a, recent, sudden, rise. WRONG! Proven faulty by McIntyre. Verified faulty by NAS, Wegman reports.

    Claim: CO2 cause temperature to rise. UNPROVEN. Historically it was temperature that rose first, then CO2. In the fifties, temperature was falling as CO2 was rising. If you think otherwise, cough up the peer reviewed journal article.

    5. CO2 is not even responsible for most of the greenhouse effect – water is. (Admitted by Al Gore’s science advisor at realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

    Ross Williams Or we can wait and see how much of the ice cap melts and how quickly.
    JK: Shouldn’t we find out how much melting is normal before we destroy people’s lives? For instance you could at one time navigate across the Northwest Passage. (Sergeant Larsen, with a crew composed partly of landlubbers successfully completed the 10,000-mile trip across the top of the world from Vancouver to Halifax. – NY Times, May 5, 1946)

    Your case is now narrowed down to panic claims about routine events like shifts in ice. Cyclic arctic melting and such.

    It is time to admit that your case is very weak an that all of your headline evidence has been proven false.

    Thanks
    JK
    Light rail costs too much, does too little.

  19. Ross,
    That was the perfect head in the sand response.

    Whatever you do don’t read anything that contradicts the extreme narrow mindedness of the Human Global Warming cult.

  20. Interestingly, the PDF article that anon posted that everyone’s shouting about was written by one “R M Carter” – here’s what SourceWatch has to say about Professor Robert (Bob) Carter:

    Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, is “a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University”, Australia [1]. In a byline with an op-ed published in the Sydney Morning Herald in September 2005 he was described as an “experienced environmental scientist” [2], but a March 2007 article in the Sydney Morning Herald noted that “Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.” [3] He is a well known climate change skeptic.

    Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

    Here’s what SourceWatch has to say about the Institute of Public Affairs’ funding sources:

    The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:

    • Major mining companies – BHP-Billiton and Western Mining Corporation;
    • Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto; and
    • A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
    • Tobacco companies – Philip Morris (Nahan) and British American Tobacco [6]
    • Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry;

    For those who might be interested in a primer on scientific opinions differing from Carter’s (to put it politely), start with Part III of this series titled “Bob Carter’s Mythology”, or just Google “bob carter” and “warming” for an assortment of articles pro and con. Or, for a good laugh, just Google An embarrassment to Australian science.

    – Bob R.

  21. Bob R. Says: to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.”
    JK: I see you are still deep into the ad hominem attacks. As to “little standing”, well Duhhh – he disagrees with their religion.

    Bob R. Says: Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank
    JK:OH My GOD!!! his politics are different than yours. You got anything besides ad hominems?

    Bob R. Says: The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations.
    JK: Just more ad hominems to substitute for actually looking at what he has to say.

    Bob R. Says: For those who might be interested in a primer on scientific opinions differing from Carter’s
    JK: That some left wing, green zealots don’t like him is not surprising. I read a bit of the CO2 saturation clam and have to say SO WHAT – CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas, lets talk about the major greenhouse gas – di-hydrogen oxide. That is the 300 lb gorilla that you guys keep trying to avoid talking about. It is responsible for MOST of any warming that is occurring and your side won’t talk about it.
    * First prove that CO2 is really a greenhouse gas. Show me the peer reviewed paper.
    * Then lets talk about the FACT that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor.

    Why don’t you just address the important facts:
    Claim: “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year” WRONG! it was a statistical error by Mann in a peer reviewed journal. See the Wegman report. Or just look at the yearly USHCNdata. 1998 is not the warmest – it ties with 1934 (after which the earth cooled, producing stories of the coming ice age.)

    Claim: The warmest years of the century are in the 1990s. WRONG! Ten warmest years by decade: 1910s…2, 1920s…1, 1930s…2, 1950s…1, 1990s…2, 2000s…1 From: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    Claim: The “hockey stick” that features so prominently in Al’s movie – it showed stable temperatures for 1000 years with a, recent, sudden, rise. WRONG! Proven faulty by McIntyre. Verified faulty by NAS, Wegman reports.

    Claim: CO2 causes temperature to rise. UNPROVEN. If you think otherwise, cough up the peer reviewed journal article. Historically it was temperature that rose first, then CO2. In the fifties, temperature was falling as CO2 was rising. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

    5. CO2 is not even responsible for most of the greenhouse effect – water is. (Admitted by Al Gore’s science advisor at realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

    Thanks
    JK

  22. The consequences of cutting carbon will devastate our standard of living.

    Where is the evidence for that? What is clear is that cutting carbon emissions will create some different economic winners and losers. The losers will be companies whose private profit requires large amount of carbon emissions into our public atmosphere. The winners will be companies that produce those same results with fewer emissions or without exporting their costs to the rest of us at all.

    That was the perfect head in the sand response.

    Not hardly. It was an observation that even if the consensus of the scientific community and its critics were equally likely to be true, we still should be acting to reduce emissions. If we wait for the conclusive proof, the ice caps having actually melted, we will be too late to do anything about it if the scientific consensus is correct.

  23. Well there you go. Bob proceeded to completely ignore the absolute science and instead play the game of attack the messenger.

    In Bob’s world it won’t matter who or what comes out contradicting Human Global Warming. Thay all should be dismissed in advance.
    Bob,
    What is it that causes one to dismiss science so easily? To pretend it doesn’t exist? To not read and consider it? And to encourage others to do the same?
    Some would view that approach as extreme or fanatical.
    It certainly isn’t open minded or progressive.
    Things which I’m sure you believe are vital to other issues. But not when it leads to you being wrong?

  24. t won’t matter who or what comes out contradicting Human Global Warming

    Maybe not, but in this case we have a guy with no training in climatology contradicting the consensus of scientists that do.

    What is it that causes one to dismiss science so easily?

    What science? I am reminded of the radio personality “Doctor Science”, who had “a masters degree – in Science!.”

    What is it that causes one to dismiss science so easily? To pretend it doesn’t exist? To not read and consider it? And to encourage others to do the same?

    Of course that is precisely what the people who claim that global warming doesn’t exist are doing. But the cause of that dismissal is often obvious, the likely measures taken to reduce global warming will harm their personal interests.

  25. PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Yeah, it’s about one 500th the size of the ocean,[speaking of the atmosphere] and that explains why we’ve had three atmospheric emergencies, if you want, through my lifetime, you know. We had acid rain, then we had the hole in the ozone layer and now we’ve got greenhouse gases and climate change. We haven’t yet precipitated a global oceanic pollution crisis. It is not that we don’t throw rubbish into the oceans, it’s just that the oceans are so much bigger. Incidentally, the day we do that – the day we pollute the oceans globally – is the day we can say goodbye to any sort of planetary stability, because the oceans are the great drivers of the system.

  26. JK –

    The “di-hydrogen oxide” business was funny the first time, but if you expect to be taken seriously stop trying to catch/distract people and just use “water”. Besides, everyone knows the Hydrogen Hydroxide council is respectable and the Di-Hydrogen oxide people have an axe to grind. :-)

    As for “attacking the source”, I did point to a scientific debunking of Prof. Carter’s “scientific” claims, and all you had come back with was “di-hydrogen oxide”. Whatever.

    There are dozens of thorough scientific debunkings of Prof. Carter’s claims out there.

    What I find particularly interesting is how intensely you protect one oil industry source from “ad hominem attacks” and yet, in the very same breath, you tar an entire collection of thousands of climate scientists as being stuck in some kind of religion. You earlier accused the majority of world climatologists of participating in the most massive scientific fraud in history. Ad hominem indeed.

    – Bob R.

  27. What I find hard to understand is how people who appear so literate, so intelligent, can be so completely IGNORANT about some subjects.

    Once again, my brother comes to mind. An intelligent man,brilliant in some ways, but he absolutely positively believes the earth is 10,000 years old and Jesus is coming down any minute now!!

    WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? How do I keep from laughing in his face?

  28. You should hear his explanation of the dinosaurs.

    The creationists think that the dinosaurs had trouble breathing since their noses shrunk and that is why we have lizards today. The lizards are actually the dinosaurs.

    I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!

    The creationists actually believe that!

    JK, I take it you subscribe to this notion?

  29. Kelly: “Well there you go. Bob proceeded to completely ignore the absolute science and instead play the game of attack the messenger.”

    Jim K: “Don’t forget to tell us how much Al Gore is making from his mutual fund and “being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.””

    Uhmm, who is attacking which messenger?

  30. There is a characteristic in some people, called “crystallization” of their minds, which prevents them from being able to see facts from fictions. It’s a form of mental illness and is quite serious.

    We see this disease in certain sub groups of humans;

    NAZI’S
    ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
    CREATIONISTS
    VARIOUS CULTS SUCH AS JIM JONES, HEAVENS GATE, RAJNEESH, etc., etc.

    These individuals are unable to see any other point of view except their own, for whatever reason; their minds are ‘crystallized’.

    The folks who think global warming concepts are some sort of “conspiracy” or “fallacy” falls into this sub group of people.

    They are dangerous to the rest of us because if they attain political power they drag the entire population down with them.

  31. JK: WOW, almost a whole morning of ad hominems, with even nazis being brought up!!

    Why do you continue to ignore these inconvenient truths:

    Claim: “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year” WRONG! it was a statistical error by Mann in a peer reviewed journal. See the Wegman report. Or just look at the yearly USHCNdata. 1998 is not the warmest – it ties with 1934 (after which the earth cooled, producing stories of the coming ice age.)

    Claim: The warmest years of the century are in the 1990s. WRONG! Ten warmest years by decade: 1910s…2, 1920s…1, 1930s…2, 1950s…1, 1990s…2, 2000s…1 From: data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/US_USHCN.2005vs1999.txt

    Claim: The “hockey stick” that features so prominently in Al’s movie – it showed stable temperatures for 1000 years with a, recent, sudden, rise. WRONG! Proven faulty by McIntyre. Verified faulty by NAS, Wegman reports.

    Claim: CO2 causes temperature to rise. UNPROVEN. If you think otherwise, cough up the peer reviewed journal article. Historically it was temperature that rose first, then CO2. (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13) In the fifties, temperature was falling as CO2 was rising.

    CO2 is not even responsible for most of the greenhouse effect – water is.(Admitted by Al Gore’s science advisor at realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

    Please note that peer reviewed is not the last word, as several articles promoting Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick passed the peer review process.

    In order to be concerned about man caused global warming you need to prove the following:

    1. The world is unusually warm.
    2. Man is causing it.

    Neither has been proven;
    Item 1: Recent times are not even the warmest this century. 1998 = 1934 Claim DISPROVEN.

    Item 2: Man is blamed for CO2, but CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas, H2O is. Further, as far as I can tell, CO2 has never been shown to be responsible for a greenhouse effect.

    But I’m sure all those climate experts on this thread can easily come up with peer reviewed papers that show that I am wrong here.

    AL M Says: The anti global warming “nuts” are a threat to all of us. READ SOME REAL SCIENCE:
    JK: For real science, why don’t you take a look at the blog that broke the hockey stick (as verified by NAS). It actually looks at and analyzes data. (climateaudit.org) Or a good reporting site run by REAL meteorologists (icecap.us/)

    Thanks
    JK
    Light rail costs too much, does too little.

  32. Ross Williams Says: Of course that is precisely what the people who claim that global warming doesn’t exist are doing. But the cause of that dismissal is often obvious, the likely measures taken to reduce global warming will harm their personal interests.
    JK: How much harm will your CO2 reduction measures do to our standard of living? Lets take an educated guess:
    1. Double the price of electricity. That’s OK for the rich, but how about the poor?
    2. Increase cost of gasolene by 50%-100%. How will the poor get to work? Should they waste hours on transit? Should they just quit work and go on welfare?
    3. Increase the cost of natural gas. That’s OK, the poor don’t need warm homes anyway. Should they choose less food for the family so that they van afford your solutions to a non problem?

    Anyone who thinks cutting CO2 will be easy is simply as deluded as our OSD is.

    But Al Gore will make millions!

    Thanks
    JK
    Light rail costs too much, does too little.

  33. “How much harm will your CO2 reduction measures do to our standard of living?”

    Who cares about standard of living if EVERYBODY IS DEAD!

    Sorry JK;

    Aint buying what your selling!

    But your free to believe whatever makes you feel good!

  34. Lets take an educated guess:

    Guess? You mean fear don’t you? Is there some reason that the price of hydro power will double? Its not even clear that coal with co2 sequestration will cost anything, it may even turn out to be more efficient. And its not clear that even reductions in overall energy consumption will require changes in lifestyle, they may be achieved by new technology or investment in cost-savings energy efficiencies.

    But you are correct. Fear is one of the driving forces behind global warming denial. I should not have suggested otherwise.

  35. Wow, you guys really need to give it a rest. Everybody needs to calm down and have a piece of pumpkin pie. Now doesn’t that sound better than arguing?

  36. JK;

    What I don’t understand is WHY would you even take a chance on this?

    Say the probability is 90% of your point of view being the correct point of view.

    That still leaves a 1/10 chance of your being wrong.

    AND IF YOUR WRONG, and we do nothing, ITS TOO LATE!

    Its not worth the risk, is it?

    You get to maintain your standard of living or the whole world suffocates, including you and your family?

    How does that compute in that brain of yours?

  37. “Everybody needs to calm down and have a piece of pumpkin pie.”

    Nah, I really want to understand how JK thinks, I already had my pie!

  38. Ross Williams Says: Is there some reason that the price of hydro power will double?
    JK: In case you didn’t notice, we quit building dams years ago. Now people like you want to tear them down.
    About ½ of our electricity, locally, is coal, nuke & gas. Nationally, around 70% of the power comes from the fossil fuels that you want to make more expensive.

    Ross Williams Says: Its not even clear that coal with co2 sequestration will cost anything, it may even turn out to be more efficient.
    JK: What world are you living in? Please provide evidence.

    Ross Williams Says: And its not clear that even reductions in overall energy consumption will require changes in lifestyle,
    JK: Please provide evidence that this claim is correct.

    Ross Williams Says: they may be achieved by new technology or investment in cost-savings energy efficiencies.
    JK: Care to name a few new technologies & cost saving efficiencies. Will they be available before your price raises cut in? Please tie these into the required CO2 reduction.

    Ross Williams Says: But you are correct. Fear is one of the driving forces behind global warming denial.
    JK: You side is the one specializing in fearmongering. You even go to great lengths to scare little children in school. Shameful.

    Why don’t you address the facts? What are you scared of – the truth?

    AL M Says: Nah, I really want to understand how JK thinks, I already had my pie!
    JK: Just look at the facts (I know that is hard for your type of personality, but ultimately your feelings cannot alter the truth):
    * the 1990s are NOT the warmest decade, and 1998 IS NOT the warmest year”
    * The warmest years of the century are NOT in the 1990s.
    * The “hockey stick” that features so prominently in Al’s movie is FALSE
    * CO2 IS NOT PROVEN to causes temperature to rise.
    * Historically it was temperature that rose first, then CO2
    * CO2 is not even responsible for most of the greenhouse effect – water is.
    This simple set of facts, completely disproves the scaremonger’s claim that global warming is even occurring, let alone man is causing it to careen out of control. The earth DOES NOT have a temperature. You have NO EVIDENCE.

    I do understand what a blow this truth is to your side, as it removes yet another reason to try to shove people into Homer’s holes and TriMets’ cattle cars.

    Thanks
    JK

  39. So JK,
    You are 100% right, is that what you are saying?
    There is no chance of global warming, is this correct? Not even a 1/100 chance?
    The probability of global warming due to carbon burning or human activity is 0%.
    That’s your view?
    I’ve been reading your posts and found that you had some really good stuff, but now you have to ruin it all with this absurd idea, which casts doubt on everything else you say.

  40. So JK,
    You are 100% right, is that what you are saying?
    There is no chance of global warming, is this correct? Not even a 1/100 chance?

    JK: Please pay attention. The important line is: You have NO EVIDENCE. That is different than a denial. It is you duty to make a case before you tell others how to live. Your side has not made that case.

    Thanks
    JK

  41. No sir, I want you to tell me right here and now, what is the probability, in your mind, of global warming being possible!

  42. I am very doubtful that humans are causing global warming. I think our activities are harming by causing pollution not warming up the air. Today the PacificNW is the most mercury polluted area in the Americas thanks to the Chinese coal factories. The scientists have found that the earth’s temperature goes up and down over time and have even concluded that all the other planets are warming, too. You don’t suppose our industries are causing those planets to warm, too, do you?

  43. “The scientists have found that the earth’s temperature goes up and down over time and have even concluded that all the other planets are warming, too. You don’t suppose our industries are causing those planets to warm, too, do you?”

    AYYYYYYYY!

    I’m going to Bed.

    HAPPY THANKSGIVING,

    C-ya mañana!

  44. AL M Says: So the chart on this website is a forgery, is that right? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
    JK: How an I supposed to know? The chart used in several Mann papers and the previous IPCC report is the one I think to be a fraud (not a forgery) In any case, it has been proven wrong.

    AL M Says: WIKIPEDIA, which I happen to sponsor btw, functions independently from all political and commercial enterprises, is lying to us?
    JK:It is subject to the opinions of the writers. I will post a suggestion to the meteorologists to correct that page.

    AL M Says: Why Wikepedia create a forgery?
    JK: It did point me to a paper that I had not seen before:
    Marsh, Nigel; Henrik, Svensmark (November 2000). “Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate” (PDF). Space Science Reviews 94: 215–230. doi:10.1023/A:1026723423896. Retrieved on 2007-04-17. Download: dsri.dk/~hsv/SSR_Paper.pdf

    Please study Figure 12. I think this hypothesis is far more credible than the CO2 garbage. Note how closely the cosmic rays reflect temperature and the rise at the far right suggests the rises shown on the top chart on the main page: Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

    Other papers on this subject show a close match throughout the 20th century, including the temperature dip in the 50s-60s which warmers try to ignore because the temperature dipped while CO2 continued to rise. Solar activity matched the temperature dip – and we know any cause and effect here can only be one way.

    BTW the climate-sun link has been known for 200 years.

    Note that the mere presence of this paper DISPROVES the claim that ALL climate scientists buy the Al Gore crap.

    Thanks
    JK

  45. Note that the mere presence of this paper DISPROVES the claim that ALL climate scientists buy the Al Gore crap.

    Straw man. Nobody is claiming that “all” climate scientists agree. They are claiming the overwhelming majority agree, including when compiling an analysing peer-reviewed scientific papers.

    “Al gore crap”. How scientific. And thoughtful.

    – Bob R.

  46. You side is the one specializing in fearmongering.

    I don’t have a side except to look at the available evidence. The folks that actually study climate are nearly unanimous that humans are having a significant impact resulting in global warming. I think we need to act on that.

    In case you didn’t notice, we quit building dams years ago.

    China recently finished building quite a large dam. But your claim was that the price of electricity was going to double. I am not sure how nuclear power doubles in price either. Same with solar, wind and geo-thermal power. So you are now looking at the cost of reducing emissions from fossil fuel plants.

    Please provide evidence that this claim is correct.

    No Jim, you need to provide evidence that reducing energy consumption requires reduction in our standard of living.

    I have a stove that uses far less energy than the one I had 30 years ago. And the new one is self-cleaning where the old one wasn’t. My standard of living has been improved while my energy consumption has declined. And that is hardly an unusual situation. It is true for almost every major household appliance. It is also true for thousands of other uses of energy.

    Please provide evidence.

    I believe there are coal plants that are selling their sequestered emissions to be pumped into oil fields to increase the production of oil. In other words, sequestration has created a new product. But that is just one example.

    If you want to make the case against specific investments to reduce greenhouse emissions, go ahead. But you are mostly talking about irrational fears of change, rather than evaluating specific proposals. It is not a surprise that those who deny global warming also have an exaggerated belief about the impacts of acting to prevent it. It is the fear of those impacts that leads to denial.

  47. Ross Williams Says: I don’t have a side except to look at the available evidence.
    JK: You are not looking at evidence. You are looking at alleged experts. There is a big difference, especially when the experts have a bill of goods to sell. I hope you recall the quotes from Schneider, Hanson and Gore – all advocating creating panic to get action. You are being led by a few very vocal zealots.

    Ross Williams Says: The folks that actually study climate are nearly unanimous
    JK: No they aren’t. A small group of computer climate simulation “scientists” are the source of most worry. They are blind to their model’s limitations – they can’t even simulate clouds properly, let alone cosmic rays.

    Ross Williams Says: that humans are having a significant impact resulting in global warming.
    JK: Other scientists are finally looking at the evidence and finding that there is no case for panic. Already the Hockey stick has been DISPROVEN. Claims of recent temperatures being record breakers have been proven WRONG. What evidence do you have left?

    Ross Williams Says: But your claim was that the price of electricity was going to double. I am not sure how nuclear power doubles in price either
    JK: Does this mean you and Governer K finally will allow nuclear power?

    Ross Williams Says: No Jim, you need to provide evidence that reducing energy consumption requires reduction in our standard of living.
    JK: Sorry, that is your duty – you are the one making fantastic claims – it is time to back them up.

    Ross Williams Says: I have a stove that uses far less energy than the one I had 30 years ago.
    JK: Far less energy??? Put a number on it. Is it enough to shield you from a doubling in electricity cost? OK now compress the next 30 years progress into a few years when the believers double the cost of energy.

    Ross Williams Says: I believe there are coal plants that are selling their sequestered emissions to be pumped into oil fields to increase the production of oil. In other words, sequestration has created a new product. But that is just one example.
    JK: That is a belief, not evidence. Show us just one case of taking 100% of the CO2 from a thousand megawatt plant and sequestering it. How do you get the CO2 from the power plant in, say Montana, to the oil field, say in Texas?

    Ross Williams Says: But you are mostly talking about irrational fears of change, rather than evaluating specific proposals.
    JK: Then it will be easy for you to provide examples of this being done BEFORE we require it. Please start NOW.

    Ross Williams Says: It is not a surprise that those who deny global warming also have an exaggerated belief about the impacts of acting to prevent
    JK: We are realists. We want to see the evidence. You have none. None for “out of control warming.” NONE for low cost ways to cut carbon.

    Thanks
    JK

  48. “JK: We are realists. We want to see the evidence. You have none. None for “out of control warming.” NONE for low cost ways to cut carbon.”

    I’ve been watching this debate closely, and have to tell you, JK, I think you may have some mental problems.

    I’m not sure what it is exactly your advocating Mr. Karlock? The vast majority of scientists do agree, global warming is indeed happening.

    Put my vote with the others in favor of making efforts right now to stem global warming.

    And what does Al Gore have to do with this subject anyway?

  49. Lou –

    I don’t know if you’re serious about the “mental problems” remark, but it strays too far into the personal for our comment policy.

    – Bob R.

  50. Already the Hockey stick has been DISPROVEN.

    From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 (Click for the entire, very detailed rebuttal to the various “hockey stick disproven” accusations.)

    MYTH #4: Errors in the “Hockey Stick” undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

    This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the “Hockey Stick” is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.

    The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the “hockey stick” shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

    The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the “Hockey-Stick” shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis (“PCA”), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.

  51. Bob R. Says: From: realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 (Click for the entire, very detailed rebuttal to the various “hockey stick disproven” accusations.)
    JK: More garbage from the guy that fabricated the hockey stick. Don’t you have anything better than the rantings of the author of a discredited paper. Here is what a National Academy Of Sciences expert said about Mann and his the hockey stick (note that the line “the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b” should have been the criticisms by MM03/05a/05b this is obvious in the context of the full report):

    Wegman:
    In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4
    JK: That is harsh criticism in the understated world of real science.
    MBH98, MBH99 are the papers that gave us Al Gore’s hockey stick temperature curve. Wegman called them somewhat obscure and incomplete …. leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. In ordinary English they are caca.

    You will recall that the MM03/05a/05b, that Wegman talks about, are the McIntyre papers severely criticizing Mann. McIntyre pointed out that:
    You can take red noise and put it into the algorithm used in MBH98 and get the famous hockey stick.
    You can remove the bristle cone pines from the data set and the hockey stick disappears.
    If you use the correct data centering methodology, the hockey stick disappears.
    Wegman described the criticisms in MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling

    Bottom line: the Mann papers that gave us the hockey stick are “obscure and incomplete” and had a “misuse in principal component analysis” while the critics of the Mann papers were found to be “valid and compelling.”

    Here is what the NAS report had to say about Mann vs. McIntyre:

    National Academy of Sciences Report on global climate change
    ( Report is at: nap.edu/catalog/11676.html )

    The below is cut and pasted from the report with our comments in [brackets]

    Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
    Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
    National Research Council
    From Page 111 (sheet 126) bold added:

    OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

    Based on its deliberations and the materials presented in Chapters 1-11 and elsewhere,
    the committee draws the following overall conclusions regarding large-scale surface temperature
    reconstructions for the last 2,000 years:
    * The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6?C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
    …….[This verifies that there was about a 0.6?C temperature increase during the 20th century (see below)]
    * Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents.
    ……[This re-affirms the existence of a “little ice age”]
    Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
    ….[This re-affirms the existence of a “medieval warm period”]
    ….[Remember the famous “hockey stick” chart? It DOES NOT show either the “little ice age” or “medieval warm period”. This omission disproves the “hockey stick” chart and the data/methods used to create it. Much of the climate field uses similar data and methods.]
    * It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
    ….[This is the headline for many newspapers. Most forgot to mention that the “preceding four centuries” started in the middle of the “little ice age (above). In other words, we are warming up after the little ice age.]
    * Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
    * Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.
    …..[ This says that we really don’t know enough about climate before A.D 900. This suggests that we are incapable of judging today’s climate in a proper historical context, considering that there has been 12,000 years of ups and downs since the last ice age. We only know about 10% of this time span to a sufficient degree.]

    ———————————- From page 21 (sheet36) Bold Added ————————————
    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
    …..[Note that this claim is only “plausible”, not likely or probable or “supported by a wide variety of evidence” (see above)]
    The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.
    ….[Here is the often heard statement that we are the warmest in 1000 years. It is given “less confidence” than “plausable” (see above). Effectively, it is shown to be baseless.]

    Don’t forget that the revised USHCN data shows that 1998 is tied with 1934 as the warmest year, so the Man’s claims about the warmest years are wrong. If you look at his “hockeystick” you will see that 1934 is nowhere near 1998 – but the USHCN data (maintained by famous alarmist, Jim Hansen) says they are equal.

    So much for RealClimate’s attempt to defend it fraud. But it did get it right when it admitted that H2O, not CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142) and also when it grudgingly admitted that atmospheric CO2 follows, not leads temperature in several careful studies of antarctic ice cores (realclimate.org/index.php?p=13)

    Bob, it is time for you to read a few primary sources, instead of parroting the rants of discredited “scientists”.

    Why don’t you spend some time looking at climateAudit.org and icecap.us. Both are run by real scientists and don’t appear to be trying to perpetuate a fraud. If you are interested in learning, look over McIntyre’s case against Mann’s paper, then read the NAS and Wegman papers.

    Thanks
    JK

  52. you are the one making fantastic claims

    No, I’m not making “fantastic claims”, you are. You claim that reducing greenhouse gases will require dramatic reductions in our standard of living. Where is the evidence for that? You claimed it will require doubling the cost of electricity. Where is the evidence for that?

    How do you get the CO2 from the power plant in, say Montana, to the oil field, say in Texas?

    You might not have noticed, but there are a number of oil fields a lot closer to Montana than Texas. But you are right, location is an important part of the whether it is an additional cost or a source of additional income. But again, where is the evidence for your claim that reducing, or eliminating, emissions will lead to doubling the cost?

    The reality is that dealing with global warming will require change, but it is not clear those changes will result in dramatic reductions in our standard of living.

    Does this mean you and Governer K finally will allow nuclear power?

    Its interesting that one minute you are arguing that reducing carbon emissions will inevitably double the price of electricity. The next you are claiming that whether that happens is a consequence of unrelated political decisions. Which is it?

    No they aren’t. A small group of computer climate simulation “scientists” are the source of most worry. They are blind to their model’s limitations – they can’t even simulate clouds properly, let alone cosmic rays.

    Except that is pretty clearly not the case. The scientific consensus is remarkably strong. But I think you understand that:

    You are not looking at evidence. You are looking at alleged experts. There is a big difference

    No, there isn’t. I have no ability to evaluate the science. Its pretty easy to come up with cockamamie theories about why the experts are all wrong. And sometimes they are. But the fact that there is a consensus among those who actually do reasearch is evidence for me that there is a real problem. And I am certainly not willing to substitute my own scientific judgments or those of other people who have no training in the field for the judgment of the folks that do. Not when the consequences of failing to act could be so catastrophic.

  53. It appears that Bob has been Mann handled and is incappable of viewing and recognizing the extensive real science which contradicts the Human Global Warming distortions.
    Like most HGW alarmists, he resists the idea of genuinely studying the entire issue and casts aside every debunking as invalid on it’s face. Whereas those he calls “deniers” of the so called “consensus”, for the most part are far more likely to have studied the full spectrum.

  54. Thanks, Kelly, for leaping to assumptions about me which are so fundamentally, drastically wrong.

    I’ve read several of the papers from the denialist camp, including the one Anon provided in this thread.

    I’ve also read papers by prominent creationists, young-earth scientists, intelligent-design theorists, meta-physicists, and scientists who (for lack of a term applying to this branch of thought) believe that black people are inherently genetically less intelligent than white people. The fact that I have not selected to believe their claims as a result of reading those papers, apparently to you, makes me “incappable of viewing and recognizing … extensive real science”.

    It’s particularly interesting also that “HGW alarmists”, as you call them, are not a monolithic group. There is a great deal of variety in the current hypotheses about climate change: The way various mechanisms interact, the amount of warming, the rate of warming, the actual level of human influence, the amount of impact near-term changes in behavior will have, what kinds of localised disruptions will be seen where, etc. There is a lot of diversity of opinion and a lot of diversity in the research being done. It’s just that the vast majority of climate scientists do happen to agree that the earth, on the whole, is warming, and that this warming is influenced to a significant degree by human activity.

    – Bob R.

  55. JK directed me to sites, climateaudit.org and icecap.us, with this endorsement: “Both are run by real scientists and don’t appear to be trying to perpetuate a fraud.”

    The first, climateaudit.org, is run by Stephen McIntyre. According to SourceWatch:

    McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[2] McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a “strategic advisor.”[3]

    And what of the prestigious “Energy and Environment” journal that published two of McIntyre’s articles? Here’s what Environmental Science and Technology discovered:

    According to a search of WorldCat, a database of libraries, the journal is found in only 25 libraries worldwide. And the journal is not included in Journal Citation Reports, which lists the impact factors for the top 6000 peer-reviewed journals.

    The other site, icecap.us, run by the guy who was one of the original meteorologists at the founding of the Weather Channel, does at least seem to have scientists with a variety of viewpoints and backgrounds listed, but according to this blog article may have issue with just how they got that list of scientists:

    To my direct knowledge, some of the “experts” listed were not contacted by ICECAP, and in fact, have no idea as to who or what ICECAP is. So clearly, they should not be referred to as “our experts” which carries an air of association when done exists. This is not good form and this misunderstanding should be cleared up by the ICECAP management

    That being said, the jury is still out on whether ICECAP will offer non-polemic scientific articles, and nobody seems to know who is funding ICECAP beyond their statement of “Icecap is funded by private individuals and think tanks not associated with the oil or major corporations.” It might be interesting to see a list of those “think tanks” and find out just who is funding them.

    This is all particularly amusing to me because until a couple of years ago I hadn’t really done much reading up on global warming. I had not heard of the site realclimate.org, the site which JK now derides as “rantings of the author of a discredited paper.”, until JK himself had linked to realclimate.org to try and back up one of his points.

    Apparently realclimate.org has lost the JK endorsement sometime in recent months.

    – Bob R.

  56. National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”.[1]

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

    The vast majority of the scientific community believes that global warming does indeed exist.

    Therefore JK, your facts are suspect, your opinions marginalized, and basically you represent nobody but yourself and that tiny fringe but vocal group of doubting Thomas’s who would see us all suffocate so you can maintain your standard of living.

  57. I think global warming is hogwash but I do think pollution is real and we should be more concerned about toxins in our environment that will actually do harm to us!

  58. Although this discussion is interesting (if not exhausting), I’m more interested in hearing about transportation and land use planning in the wake of this perceived future threat.

    I believe that it will be difficult if not impossible to persuade people to feel differently about transportation policy in this region based on the threat of global warming. Although suburban sprawl is facilitated by cheap gasoline and SUV’s, it is not dependent on it. If we choose or are forced into a more carbon friendly lifestyle, those who prefer to live in the ‘burbs would almost certainly make other sacrifices (work home, shop from home, fewer trips, etc. etc.) rather than move downtown or into high density housing along light rail. And that’s assuming that there will be no future innovations to make trips cheaper, faster, AND more carbon friendly (innovations that would facilitate sprawl).

    I am a fan of alternative transit. Some of this is because of my belief that automobiles become less efficient means of transportation as metros grow beyond a certain point, and also because I think that society is better off when people have options and aren’t forced into a single way to get around. That being said, I believe that the debate over carbon levels in the atmosphere alone will do little or nothing to move transportation and land use planning forward.

  59. I’m more interested in hearing about transportation and land use planning in the wake of this perceived future threat.

    Yeah, me too. I can’t wait to see the full effect of Measure 49 play out here in the valley. More expansion of cities onto nearby VERY fertile farmland on the valley floor while the vineyards destroy the very INFERTILE soil in the hillsides where the subdivisions really SHOULD be. At least Oregonians will be able to swizzle their cherished wine and ride toy trains all around the Willamette Valley Megalopolis while they all starve to death.

  60. The best case for light rail is that it does not pollute the atmosphere.

    That’s the strongest case it has, other than being faster than buses. (most of the time)

  61. The best case for light rail is that it does not pollute the atmosphere.

    To that I would add two qualifiers:

    The best case for light rail is that it does not pollute at the vehicle and does not pollute the atmosphere as much…

    (The electricity has to come from somewhere, and it’s not all hydro power, wind, or solar at this time.)

    – Bob R.

  62. I’m more interested in hearing about transportation and land use planning in the wake of this perceived future threat.

    I believe that it will be difficult if not impossible to persuade people to feel differently about transportation policy in this region based on the threat of global warming. Although suburban sprawl is facilitated by cheap gasoline and SUV’s, it is not dependent on it. If we choose or are forced into a more carbon friendly lifestyle, those who prefer to live in the ‘burbs would almost certainly make other sacrifices (work home, shop from home, fewer trips, etc. etc.) rather than move downtown or into high density housing along light rail.

    I think the answer to that is that we need to take the benefits of density to the less dense neighborhoods in our region. As a million new people come to the region in the next 20 years, if we plan to build their housing along transit corridors, we’re going to find that a side benefit is that a lot of places with few or no services will now have grocery stores and other retail within a more walkable or bikeable range.

    Employment is the trickier part. I think our planning tools for figuring how to predict (much less encourage) where employment goes are much weaker than our tools around housing.

    [Moderator: Corrected italics for clarity. -B.R.]

  63. Folks, when quoting others using italics, please note that the blogging software on this site automatically kills italics at the end of each paragraph. Thus, you must remember to put separate italics tags around each individual quoted paragraph. (Yep, even Chris got zapped by this one…)

    – Bob R.

  64. Employment is the trickier part

    That is true. I work for the State down here in Salem and I cannot even believe how many State workers make the commute from the Portland area down here. There really are no viable transit options for them to get to work unless they want to take the Cherriots 1X bus from Wilsvonville. I would imagine a Portland or Beaverton area commute using a combination of TriMet to Wilsonville and Cherriots to Salem would be a 2 or 3 hour ordeal each way! We need WES and more frequent Amtrak service.

  65. Employment is the trickier part. I think our planning tools for figuring how to predict (much less encourage) where employment goes are much weaker than our tools around housing.

    Part of that is the normal tools, like zoning, often do not hold up well when significant employment is at stake. The other difficulty is that businesses that can draw employees from a wide area have an advantage in being able to fill specialized positions.

  66. Bob R. Says: The first, climateaudit.org, is run by Stephen McIntyre. According to SourceWatch:

    McIntyre does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.[2] McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a “strategic advisor.”[3]

    JK: I see you are still deep into ad hominem and are still ignoring the facts:

    Here is what the former head of the statistics branch of the National Academy of Sciences said about your hero Mann:

    Wegman:
    In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. 07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf, page 4
    JK: That is harsh criticism in the understated world of real science.
    MBH98, MBH99 are the papers that gave us Al Gore’s hockey stick temperature curve. Wegman called them somewhat obscure and incomplete …. leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. In ordinary English they are caca.

    You will recall that the MM03/05a/05b, that Wegman talks about, are the McIntyre papers severely criticizing Mann. McIntyre pointed out that:
    You can take red noise and put it into the algorithm used in MBH98 and get the famous hockey stick.
    You can remove the bristle cone pines from the data set and the hockey stick disappears.
    If you use the correct data centering methodology, the hockey stick disappears.
    Wegman described the criticisms in MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling

    Bottom line: the Mann papers that gave us the hockey stick are “obscure and incomplete” and had a “misuse in principal component analysis” while the critics of the Mann papers were found to be “valid and compelling.”

    How many times do I have to repeat before you get it: Mann’s hockey stick is wrong. Advanced degrees don’t matter, soruces of funding don’t matter – only being right matters and McIntyre is right and your side is wrong. In fact the whole field of climate modeling shares the same problems.

    You really ought to browse the NAS report – it has a lot of background info on the field.

    PS: It looks like your sourcewatch is a bit one sided. I checked James E. Hansen and didn’t find the money he got from Democrat politicians as an advisor (Kerry?). Shame on your source.

    PS2: It appears to also have left out Stephen Schneider who said it it OK to lie to the public (you know, like Gore also said):Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists’ dilemma this way: “On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. This `double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47

    Thanks
    JK

  67. Chris said:

    [i]I think the answer to that is that we need to take the benefits of density to the less dense neighborhoods in our region. [/i]

    Chris,

    With all due respect, I don’t know what question you are responding to, but my guess is that it is not a question that most suburbanites would be asking in the wake of an energy crisis. Believe it or not, a lot of people like living in the ‘burbs, despite the increasing expenses (in time and money) to do so.

  68. Chris Smith Says: I think the answer to that is that we need to take the benefits of density to the less dense neighborhoods in our region.
    JK: What benefits, I can only find problems with density such as:
    High density costs more
    High density causes traffic congestion
    High density has longer commute times
    High density’s alleged energy saving is unproven and probably non-existant
    It does however provide a lot of developers lots of tax money to build “complete communities”.

    Why would one walk or bike to a little store when, for $1 worth of gas you can save $50 at costco, winco or wallmart?
    (based on 10 mile round trip 30 mpg and $3/gal – but at $10 per gal that is still $3 top save $50 and you can’t do that on transit anyway)

    Thanks
    JK

  69. Gee Jim Karlock;

    It seems to me that you have mixed up politics with global warming.

    You have excellent writing skills, too bad your not saying much worth reading.

    sorry,

    thanks Al M

  70. I think I have to agree with JK on the point about density. When I lived in NE and took the toy trains to my job by OHSU SoWhat it took an hour to get there. Now I live in a mess less denseley and higher quality locale out in Yamhill County and drive to work in Salem every day in 20 minutes. I guess I’m making up for all the time I had eliminated my carbon footprint while living in Portland!

  71. Why would one walk or bike to a little store when, for $1 worth of gas you can save $50 at costco, winco or wallmart?

    Because Winco and Walmart and Costco offer inferior products to what I can buy at say… a New Seasons. It’s a quality, not a quantity/savings question. Walking or biking to a decent store that offers quality fresh produce, meats and sundries is a far more pleasant experience and better for my life and health, all around. Plus, I can develop relationships and connections with my neighborhood, rather than moving from one closed off pod to another, then walking into a store where I’m treated like another piece of livestock blindly following the herd.

  72. walking into a store where I’m treated like another piece of livestock blindly following the herd

    I felt like a piece of livestock when being crammed into the cattle cars of Portland. Besides the crap they’re selling at New Seasons and Whole Foods isn’t any better than you can buy at WinCo. You’re just buying their con.

  73. “Besides the crap they’re selling at New Seasons and Whole Foods isn’t any better than you can buy at WinCo. You’re just buying their con.”

    LOL!!LOL!!!

    Yea, I guess, the whole world is a con, from organic foods to global warming, its a big
    L-I-B-E-R-A-L
    Conspiracy.

    And you know who’s behind this world wide liberal conspiracy?

    Yea, you got it:

    AL GORE!

  74. “not really a conspiracy, just a bunch of blind dolts following a fad policy of the day.”

    As of now I am eating in Macdonald’s, buying a Cadillac SUV, and buying stock in coal mines.

    Thanks for clearing this up for me;

    AL M

  75. Greg,

    From what I’ve found, there isn’t much difference in the taste and quality of organic convenience foods vs. conventional. However, fresh produce and meats are far tastier and keep longer if they’re of the organic, locally sourced variety.

    Winco et. al have their own different con going. It’s mostly the “buy the bad tasting cheap trucked in produce that rots if you don’t eat it immediately” con, coupled with the drive 5 miles to save with this 50 cent coupon con. But hey…at least Winco is union.

    I just choose the con (service delivery philosophy coupled with marketing) that gets me fresher, better tasting food, because that’s important to me. I’m a foodie and I’m picky. I can taste the difference.

    Not to mention that walking and biking is infinitely more pleasant than driving and hunting for a parking place (to me).

  76. “fresh produce and meats are far tastier and keep longer if they’re of the organic, locally sourced variety.”
    “Not to mention that walking and biking is infinitely more pleasant than driving and hunting for a parking place”

    Well according to GTinSalem you’re just another blind dolt following the fad policy of the day. You’d be much better off driving everywhere since there is no gas crisis and no global warming issues.

    Then of course you should be going to Wal-Mart and pay the cheapest price you can find so that your standard of living can be better. No need to eat fresh foods either since they are obviously not better for you, I suggest cheap canned fish from china.

  77. About once a month I ride my bicycle to Winco, for cheese, butter, tortillas, and beer, (all of which were actually made within 200 miles of here,) and tend to end up buying some bulk pasta and a bagel too. So I save a couple dollars on gas, and a couple dollars on the items I’m buying, and I don’t have pay $30/month for a gym membership either…

    (What does TinFoilHatSalem have to say to that?)

  78. FURTHERMORE:

    There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that physical exercise causes human beings to live healthier and longer lives.

    NO PROVABLE EVIDENCE EXISTS AT ALL!

    So instead of taking so much time walking and/or bicycling, you could be doing much more productive things, like working longer and making more money to improve your standard of living.

    And don’t forget driving helps the economy grow by using gas and going to auto repair shops!

  79. JK: It looks like your sourcewatch is a bit one sided. I checked James E. Hansen and didn’t find the money he got from Democrat politicians as an advisor (Kerry?).

    You mean you don’t _know_ who his funding source was?

    Why the insistence on petty truncations of grammar, so popular with some political groups today, when describing a political party? Hint: It’s the “Democratic Party” not the “Democrat Party”. Not a particularly galling point, but strangely common among the bitter political discourse we have today.

    – Bob R.

  80. AL M Says: In the WSJ’s Heard on the Street column today (paid sub. req’d), Gregory Zuckerman lays out the argument for Consol Energy and other high sulfur coal producers. Key points:
    JK: Here is what the link says:
    * High sulfur coal was previously undesirable due to pollution caused when burning it. But many electric utilities have installed “scrubbers” which remove sulfur fumes.
    * Once the pollution problem is removed, high sulfur coal is more economical than low sulfur coal because it is frequently located closer to power plants and burns hotter.

    Presumably that only leaves the coal and:
    Mercury
    Uranium
    Thorium
    Many other elements. (see: ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html )
    All of which end up in the air and are the real reason to get rid of coal (or clean it up even more.)

    From an environmental, sustainability and economic standpoint, nuclear appears to be the best replacement. It is cheaper, we have plentiful supplies and it puts nothing in the air. This is one of the very few things we can do to reduce CO2 and actually come out better, but most “progressives” (really regressives to the 1900s) are against it.

    I will postulate that the only ways to reduce CO2 and end up cheaper and better are either
    1) unknown/unproven or
    2) politically banned (like nukes effectively are.)

    Thanks
    JK

  81. JK:We seem to have drifted off topic again, can anyone here dispute these facts:
    * the 1990s are NOT the warmest decade, and 1998 IS NOT the warmest year using USHCN data (the best in the world)
    * Most of the warmest years of the century are NOT in the 1990s.
    * The “hockey stick” that features so prominently in Al’s movie is FALSE
    * CO2 IS NOT PROVEN to cause temperature to rise.
    * Historically it was temperature that rose first, then CO2 (per several Antarctic studies)
    * CO2 is not even responsible for most of the greenhouse effect – water is.

    I believe that this simple set of facts, completely disproves the scaremonger’s claim that global warming is a serious problem, or any problem at all.

    Thanks
    JK

  82. “I believe that this simple set of facts, completely disproves the scaremonger’s claim that global warming is a serious problem, or any problem at all.”

    I do not believe any of your facts or hypothesis!

    I think you are blinded by your hatred of “liberals” and have somehow confused global warming with “liberal” policy, and as such cannot see anything even resembling the truth.

    I choose to believe the majority of those involved in the sciences that global warming is something that is indeed occurring and is caused exclusively by the burning of fossil fuels by humans.

    I further believe that this needs to be dealt with sooner than later.

    But I appreciate your efforts to convince me (and others) otherwise, you surely have made a valiant attempt, and for that I salute you.

    Thanks;

    AL M

  83. Oh great, another blog discussion all tied up in knots by an industry lackey.  I’ve seen him in other places, and I presume he is paid well to muddy the waters wherever he can.

    I have a recommended response to those who spew a high volume of fallacy.  I suggest that the moderator of this blog block Karlock from further posting.  It’s the equivalent of putting a child in “time out.”

  84. It’s amazing how easy it is for so many to beleive this fabricated human global warming propaganda.
    The extensive contradicting science makes it entirely irrational to pretend it doesn’t exist or to pretend all of it comes from oil interests and is without merit.
    The invonvenient truth is Al Gores’s pitch has been unraveling for a couple years now.
    Any of you who are failing to grasp this are doing so deliberately.

  85. there remain four problems with turning an
    increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide into global warming
    alarmism. First, the relationship between increasing carbon
    dioxide and increasing temperature is logarithmic, which lessens
    the forcing effect of each successive increment of carbon dioxide
    (Figure 4). Second, in increasing from perhaps 280 ppm in
    pre-industrial times to 380 ppm now, carbon dioxide should
    already have produced 75 per cent of the theoretical warming of
    ~1°C that would be caused by a doubling to 560 ppm (Lindzen,
    2006); as we move from 380 to 560 ppm, at most a trivial few
    tenths of a degree of warming remain in the system. Claims of
    greater warming, such as those of the IPCC (2001), are based
    upon arbitrary adjustments to the lambda value in the
    Stefan-Boltzmann equation, and untested assumptions about
    positive feedbacks from water vapour. Third, the ice core data
    show conclusively that, during natural climate cycling, changes
    in temperature precede changes in carbon dioxide by an average
    800 years or so (Fischer et al, 1999; Indermuhle et al, 2000;
    Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al, 2003); similarly, temperature
    change precedes carbon dioxide change, in this case by five
    months, during annual seasonal cycling (Kuo, Lindberg and
    Thomson, 1990). And, fourth, Boucot, Xu and Scotese (2004)
    have shown that over the Phanerozoic little relationship exists
    between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and
    necessary warming, including that extensive glaciation occurred
    between 444 and 353 million years ago when atmospheric
    carbon dioxide was up to 17 times higher than today (Chumakov,
    2004).

  86. Nah, people have a right to say what they want and believe what they want.

    Freedom of speech is important.

    I am done with this thread!

    Let somebody else listen to the “global warming is a fraud” advocates.

  87. Well there we again see it is not the “global warming is a fraud” camp who has their ears plugged, eyes shut and minds closed.

    Quite the contrary. That’s the only way one can continue buying the fraud.
    The desire for it to be true is simply too strong.

  88. Well here we see again that this discussion has gone on for dozens of posts and nobody has thus far been suspended or impeded from posting, and yet someone anonymously (which is allowed, within reason) chastises the rest of the people who have been here for quite some time, for allegedly plugging their ears, shutting their eyes, and closing their minds, when in fact this is obviously not the case.

    Just as the global warming denialists, within reason, have a right to state their claim of a massive world-wide conspiracy to perpetuate a scientific hoax, other people have an equal right to grow tired of the repetitive and sometimes spiteful arguments being put forth.

    One, and exactly one, person who as far as I can remember has never posted here before has asked for Mr. Karlock to be suspended. (As facts would have it, Mr. Karlock has been temporarily suspended in the past for violations of the rules, but further action is not yet being contemplated.) From this, our illustrious anonymous poster has apparently concluded thusly that the rest of the audience has a closed mind. Not exactly an application of the scientific method, with which Anon apparently seems to claim a superior relationship.

    – Bob R.

  89. Whether or not man-made global warming is true, it seems that there are agendas at work.

    On one hand, the are the lefties who don’t particularly like capitalism, esp. big corporations, who see man-made GW as a way to put a crimp on profits.

    On the other hand, there are the righties, who are pro-auto and pro-oil, and want to see the current merry ways continue.

    As a political independent, I have just sat back and read the posts on this thread and been very amused at how people are prisoners of their ideology. They act like robots in their approach to issues. Like the ‘railfans’ who are in a state of denial about problems with MAX, for instance.

  90. “Like the ‘railfans’ who are in a state of denial about problems with MAX, for instance.”

    Sure Nick, there are problems with max, for sure.

    But how can anybody be against the blue line connecting Gresham, Portland, Beaverton, and Hillsboro?

    And how can anybody be against the red line to the airport?

    Those two max lines are good for the region overall. Taking a bus from Gresham to Hillsboro is NOT THE WAY TO DO IT NICK!

  91. “But how can anybody be against the blue line connecting Gresham, Portland, Beaverton, and Hillsboro?

    And how can anybody be against the red line to the airport?”

    >>>> I AM!

    “Those two max lines are good for the region overall. Taking a bus from Gresham to Hillsboro is NOT THE WAY TO DO IT NICK!”

    >>>> If the present Blue Line had been built as a bus rapid transit line, it would take less than 1 hour 33 minutes to go from end to end. Many levels of service could have been run ( i.e., local to express), instead of the current slow all-stop inflexible operation.

  92. “If the present Blue Line had been built as a bus rapid transit line, it would take less than 1 hour 33 minutes to go from end to end. Many levels of service could have been run ( i.e., local to express), instead of the current slow all-stop inflexible operation.”

    That’s a good point of course, but I happen to think that at some point in the future, and maybe not as distant as everyone is imagining, gas will be a scarce commodity.

    Light rail is immune to the fluxes of the commodity markets. And that’s got to be a good thing.

    But I do agree with you that they blew it with their street level operation and snail’s pace through Portland. That was poor planning. They want Portland to be like Europe which is a fools idea.

    BTW, did your read my other post where I was told that Steven Banta, #2 man at Trimet has committed to improving the bus service?

  93. Not to mention that walking and biking is infinitely more pleasant than driving and hunting for a parking place (to me)

    Psymonetta,

    I’m sure you would feel differently if the nearest city limits was 15 miles away and the nearest Whole Foods or New Seasons was over 40 miles away! Oh well there are tradeoffs in life. I get to live on a 40 acre farm and you get to hear and smell your neighbors all the time. I’m no longer getting ripped off by sky high prices any more for living, parking, or food like I was when living in Portland and Beaverton. I’m raising my own grass fed beef and my chickens are free roamers too. I buy my other stuff I don’t grow at Costo, Wal-Mar, or Winco. I can’t wait until Coscto is built in McMinnville so I don’t have to drive up to Wilsonville. The one in Salem is usually too crowded so I don’t go there. But there are four Wal-Marts down in Salem compared to only two in Portland! There’s also a “New Seasons esque” place called Harvest Fresh in McMinnville that is really good and a whole lot cheaper than your hoity toity ripoff joints there in Portland.

  94. Light rail is no more immune to the fluxes of the commodity markets than a better bus system would be. Which is not at all.
    However light rail is indeed infected with the fluz of being restricted to the rail. Making it forever inflexible and needing people to drive to it to use it. An honest, comprehensive and complete analysis shows light rail to be rediculously inefficient as a trasnportation mode. Even it’s advocates know this. That’s why they have to advocate for it by casting it as a development tool. But there again it fails miserably to trigger development so it is equally inefficient as development tool.
    Of course light rail then serves as an excuse for jurisdictions to spend millions on the development which wasn’t triggered by the rail transit.
    And round in cirlces we go with another round of promises and spending.
    Round in scirles we go

  95. infected with the fluz

    Fluz? I’m afraid Dictionary.com didn’t have an answer for that one.

    Even it’s advocates know this.

    Can you read minds?

    Round in scirles we go

    You sure got that part right. (Mostly.)

  96. “I tried that already – it didn’t work. I moved away – that DID work.”

    LOL!! touche gtin!

    BIG NEWS, AUSTRALIA KICKS HOWARD OUT OF OFFICE, WILL SIGN KYOTO PROTOCOL!

    Australia now joins the rest of the world in the fight to stop global warming.

    GET BUSH OUT, America needs to be part of the world!

  97. GET BUSH OUT, America needs to be part of the world

    Al,

    I think you have it backwards. The world needs to be part of America….. I do agree with the Bush part, however. I am voting for Ron Paul. He’s the only hope out of this dismal mess the Republicrat party has made for us the past 20 years.

  98. The world needs to be part of America…

    From pro-colonialist authoritarian…

    I am voting for Ron Paul.

    …to isolationist libertarian.

    A complete political transformation achieved in three sentences.

  99. “A complete political transformation achieved in three sentences.”

    Never underestimate what can happen when I guy puts a piece of TinFoil over his head.

  100. I’ll ride my horse around in downtown Portland while wearing my tinfoil hat. Do you think I’ll make it on the news?

  101. “I’ll ride my horse around in downtown Portland while wearing my tinfoil hat. Do you think I’ll make it on the news?”

    I’ll be there with my video camera, let me know when!

    Gtin;

    watta ya gonna do when the Chinese take over?

  102. BTW;

    Not only is the new PM of Australia signing the Kyoto agreement, he is also pulling his troops out of Iraq.

    Bush is all alone in the world now, too bad we have a congress full of spineless, complicit democrats who allow him to stay there.

  103. Al,

    They’re all republicrats! That is the whole problem. Nothing will get done with either the Dems. OR the Repub. in power. We need a coup d’tat and a revolution!

  104. “We need a coup d’tat and a revolution!”

    GTinSalem is not so crazy after all!

    I’M IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THAT STATEMENT!

  105. Bob,
    “Even it’s advocates know this.
    Can you read minds?”

    Are you unaware of the comments by officials such as Charlie Hales who said, “If all this was about is transportation, Light Rail makes no sense. It’s about development patterning and planning for growth in a better way”

    No need to read minds when one can read their own words.

    Besides light rail not making sense is the bigger problem of the “development patterning” failing to accomodate growth, in every way. It’s all theory.
    But with agencies in a perpetual campaign to promote the theroies over outcomes we’ll get more of the same for decades.
    Not a good thing.
    We’ll get LA from Hillsboro to Gresham without adequate traffic/commerce infrastructure, without a affordable housing and without our “alternative model” ever becoming a genuine substitute.

  106. A Google search for “Charlie Hales” and “if all this was” turned up nothing.

    A search for “Charlie Hales” and “development patterning” turned up two hits:

    1. A July, 2005 Portland Transport comment by Steve Schopp.
    2. A May, 2007 BlueOregon comment by Janice.

    (An interesting aside: the similarities in writing style, grammar, and formatting between Steve, Kelly, and Janice are quite remarkable.)

    Neither quoted Hales directly. To be sure, I reduced the search to just “Hales” and no more relevant results popped up among the bunch.

    A search for “Charlie Hales” and “growth in a better way” also turned up nothing.

    Substituting “Commissioner Hales” and “Charles Hales” into the various searches revealed no such quote either.

    Yes, please do give a source. Apparently this information has not yet been posted online.

    – Bob R.

  107. Hey Bob R;

    I was going to comment on the fact that Light rail is 21% faster than bus. I forgot which thread it was so I’ll use this one.

    I was seriously under the impression that light rail was
    SIGNIFICANTLY faster than bus, like 1-200% faster.

    So 21% faster really doesn’t impress me.

    Especially when it breaks down cause:

    THEY DON’T LET YOU OUT!
    [and yes I’ve had it happen to me!]

  108. Bob R. Says:

    A Google search for “Charlie Hales” and “if all this was” turned up nothing.
    ….
    Yes, please do give a source. Apparently this information has not yet been posted online.
    JK: I know the quote is accurate because I save the video it was in a KOIN interview with Hales a few years ago. I was hoping to find a print version.

    Thanks
    JK

  109. Al –

    You’re looking for the comments in the Bus vs. Light Rail thread.

    It really depends on what your comparing. For example, the non-downtown portion of the original Blue Line (Lloyd Center to Cleveland Ave. in Gresham), at rush hour, is 49% faster than the system average for buses.

    Of course, that system average includes buses which run downtown, dragging down the average for buses in the same manner as rail.

    Any further comments on the bus vs. rail topic should go over in the other thread.

    – Bob R.

  110. djk Says: Can you name any other “scientific fraud” for comparison purposes? I’m not talking about the actions of an unscrupulous individual or two like the “Piltdown Man” hoax, but a “fraud” that was perpetrated by an entire branch of the scientific community over decades of published, peer-reviewed research? I can’t think of any.
    JK:
    Lysenko
    eugenics

    Thanks
    JK

  111. JK –

    Neither Lysenko-Michurinism nor Eugenics (in the sense of widespread forced sterilizations and ethnic cleansing) were disciplines supported by an overwhelming majority of scientists or peer-reviewed scientific papers.

    – Bob R.

  112. Interesting thread.
    Your “overwhelming majority of scientists and peer-reviewed scientific papers” on global warming just shows how they can be highjacked by politics and fanatasism.

    Politics which will utilize any means to push forward the agenda (including the corrupting of the peer review process) and the fanatasism that turn advocates into cult members who reject and/or assault all opposing science.

    Anyone who has no doubts about humans causing global warming has lost their objectivity and has failed to stay up to speed on the unfolding and growing GW contradictions.
    Pretending that all contradictions are from illegitimate and corrupted sources is a symptom of blind extremism.

    But in that fanatasism you can play your games forever without wavering. No matter how bad YOUR science gets or that none of the alarmist warmings ever come about.

    After all, it will be easy for you, at any time really, to claim that you and your “policies” reversed the trend and saved the planet. :)

    Bless you ahead of time for saving us all.

  113. After all, it will be easy for you, at any time really, to claim that you and your “policies” reversed the trend and saved the planet. :)

    That is a better result than the alternative which is that the scientific consensus is correct, we do nothing and we have a catastrophe as a result.

    But more to the point, when was the last time that there was a worldwide scientific consensus contrary to powerful economic interests that proved wrong? I can’t think of one.

    We not only have a scientific consensus. We have a worldwide political consensus as well, with the exception of a small handful of dissenters who have had to invent an alternative scientific reality to support their position.

    It seems to me those who claim this is driven by politics need to describe what those politics are that have so many diverse ideological and political systems arriving at the same conclusion. I doubt China, Norway, Japan or South Africa are much interested in Al Gore’s political career.

  114. The folks that think global warming is some kind of myth are the same folks who listen to talk radio, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!

    American’s are really stupid.

    SORRY!

    One look at a culture like Norway really tells the story of our own barbaric culture of ME FIRST!

  115. The folks that think global warming is some kind of myth are the same folks who listen to talk radio, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!

    American’s are really stupid.

    SORRY!

    One look at a culture like Norway really tells the story of our own barbaric culture of ME FIRST!

  116. The folks that think global warming is some kind of myth are the same folks who listen to talk radio, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!

    American’s are really stupid.

    SORRY!

    One look at a culture like Norway really tells the story of our own barbaric culture of ME FIRST!

  117. The folks that think global warming is some kind of myth are the same folks who listen to talk radio, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!

    American’s are really stupid.

    SORRY!

    One look at a culture like Norway really tells the story of our own barbaric culture of ME FIRST!

  118. The folks that think global warming is some kind of myth are the same folks who listen to talk radio, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!

    American’s are really stupid.

    SORRY!

    One look at a culture like Norway really tells the story of our own barbaric culture of ME FIRST!

  119. Ross,
    The likely “alternative” is GW is a fraud which far more than small handful of dissenters and an invented scientific reality demonstrates.

    It seems to me while calling for more of it you you are resiting and avoiding the readily available descriptions of the science and politics involved.
    It’s very easy to explore the full spectrum of the issue on the web and know more about the so called scientific concensus.

    Al M Says:
    “The folks that think global warming is some kind of myth are the same folks who listen to talk radio, AND ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT!”

    No need to listen to talk radio with the enormous capacity of the web.
    But for those like me who regularly listen to Air America’s, Ed Schultz, Tom Hartman, Mike Malloy, Sam Cedar, Ring of Fire and even Rhandi Rhodes, your comment about talk radio is obvioulsy a completely biased remark.
    I can only imagine that the stupid Americans you’re referring to are the ones listening to conservative talk radio?
    You know where they have pride in our country as opposed to vewing it as “barbaric”.

    This is a very thorough case from anon above.
    One of MANY easily found on the web.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf
    And from Karlock
    youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
    youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
    youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

    There are so many impartial, qualified, science oriented dissenters who have published works, that it is nothing short of bizarre for anyone with web access to pretend it either doesn’t exist. Or that it is all invented science.
    Simply look at it and the NASA-like sources of the data and at least acknowledge the opposing science exists.
    Otherwise you look rather limited.

  120. Well, what the heck is your meassage anyway?

    That everyone should ignore all of the growing contradictions to global warming?

    And that everyone who is listening to talk radio is stupid?

    Perhaps you can explain how it is smart to ignore the opposing viewpoints on Global Warming and
    how it is that you became so much smarter than people who listen to talk radio?
    And do you never listen to any talk radio?
    Please, how about some clarity?

  121. my message was Norway was cool, and doing something about energy conservation.

    And no I DO NOT listen to talk radio.

    Thanks, and have a good day!

  122. Perhaps you can explain how it is smart to ignore the opposing viewpoints on Global Warming

    Because there really aren’t any that have any real merit based on the science. Its the same reason its smart to ignore the tobacco companies’ opposing viewpoint that smoking isn’t really bad for you.

  123. Ross,
    Just so I can understand where you are coming from.
    Am I to assume you read this and other collections of opposing viewpoints?

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf

    And even though there is abundant science (and experts) throughout you declare none of them have any science based merit?

    That’s a stunning declaration.
    How can you make such a charge?

    If in the next few months the collection of scientific contradictions to GW doubles and doubles again in the following months will you continue to declare them all to have no merit?

    Will it take the IPCC itself declaring their own report wrong for you to alter your assessment?

  124. And even though there is abundant science (and experts) throughout you declare none of them have any science based merit?

    Merit, sure. The tobacco companies have scientists who make arguments with “merit” too. But in fact they represent a distinct minority of scientific opinion and their arguments are mostly directed at non-professionals rather than persuading their scientific peers. That alone ought to be a dead giveaway that this is not a scientific debate.

    That’s a stunning declaration.

    Not really. It is the nearly unanimous position of the scientific community throughout the world.

    Will it take the IPCC itself declaring their own report wrong for you to alter your assessment?

    Yes. And that is exactly what any but the most ideologically committed person should do. Rely on the collective opinion of the scientific community who have the training and background to accurately evaluate competing scientific claims.

    In the case of global warming, the scientific community is nearly unanimous, with a high level of certainty, that human activity is at least making a significant contribution to global warming. And the dissent from that opinion is largely coming from people who lack the training to accurately evaluate the scientific evidence.

  125. I just cant debate whether we should do something to prevent global warming/pollution.

    AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE STATUS QUO ARE INSANE HENCE THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH.

    They remind me of drug addicts, or schizophrenics, there is no reasoning with those people either.

  126. I just cant debate whether we should do something to prevent global warming/pollution.

    AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE STATUS QUO ARE INSANE HENCE THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH.

    They remind me of drug addicts, or schizophrenics, there is no reasoning with those people either.

  127. I just cant debate whether we should do something to prevent global warming/pollution.

    AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE STATUS QUO ARE INSANE HENCE THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH.

    They remind me of drug addicts, or schizophrenics, there is no reasoning with those people either.

  128. I just cant debate whether we should do something to prevent global warming/pollution.

    AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE STATUS QUO ARE INSANE HENCE THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH.

    They remind me of drug addicts, or schizophrenics, there is no reasoning with those people either.

  129. I just cant debate whether we should do something to prevent global warming/pollution.

    AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED THE PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THE STATUS QUO ARE INSANE HENCE THEY CANNOT BE REASONED WITH.

    They remind me of drug addicts, or schizophrenics, there is no reasoning with those people either.

  130. Ross,

    You’re dodging your own points.

    There is without question abundant science, experts and merit which contradicts HGW.

    Simply watch the videos above and note the extensive and clear use of the same science you claim is nearly unanimoulsy supporting the GW theory.
    You are dwelling on the vague while acting as if you didn’t bother to read and consider the scientific content of the material.

    Equating these scientists to tobacco company shills is a dodge also.

    What you refer to as a “dead giveaway that this is not a scientific debate” is simply avoiding the debate and science.

    Your stunning declaration that all of the opposing science has no merit is NOT the “nearly unanimous position of the scientific community throughout the world.”

    That’s just another off the wall claim of yours.

    You seem to think there is no opposition who are scientists in the scientific community who have the training and background to accurately evaluate competing scientific claims.

    Another shallow claim.

    The dissent is in fact coming from highly trained people who have more accurately evaluated the scientific evidence.
    If you would simply watch those 4 videos you would discover that for yourself.

    Al,

    I realize you can’t debate, given your lack of a full spectrum and allegiance to the pandamonium.
    You also confuse CO2/global warming with polution. They are not the same and CO2 is not polution.
    You too should watch the 4 videos and discover the tremendous distortions of science used by your global warming alarmists.

    It is not well REASONED to avoid the full presentation of the science. That’s much closer to insane than you view of people who do.

    It’s all science!
    Be curious.
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf

    youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
    youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
    youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
    youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno

  131. [moderator mode on]

    Al –

    Please don’t cross over into making direct personal attacks.

    Steve – The links you’ve posted have now been posted in this thread at least 4 times. That should be plenty.

    – Bob R.

    [moderator mode off]

  132. I clearly stated mr bob, that the gentlemen was not to take it personally, thereby making it a non personal attack…

  133. “Equating these scientists to tobacco company shills is a dodge also.”

    Oddly enough, (okay, it isn’t odd at all, but it is odd that you’d bring that up,) actually that is exactly how the Global Warming Deniers got started. Back in 1993, Phillip-Morris hired a lobbing company to try to convince people that the health risks of tobacco “weren’t clear.” The lobbying company formed a group called “The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition” (TASSC) who then immediately needed a cover story for why the existed, (so that they didn’t look like just a lobbying front for Phillip-Morris.) So they attempted to solicit money from Monsanto, (so they could disprove that pesticides were dangerous,) but Monsanto didn’t want anything to do with them, so they then went to Exxon, with the idea being that they could cast doubt about Global Warming…

    TASSC is no longer officially around, (the New York Times exposed them for who they really were back in 1998,) but oddly enough the people on it’s payroll still seem to show up for the same causes.

  134. There is without question abundant science, experts and merit which contradicts HGW.

    No. There isn’t. And your repeating it, doesn’t make it true. The fact is that there is a worldwide consensus among scientists that global warming is happening as a result of human activity. Are there some dissenters? Yes. But they have been unable to persuade the rest of the scientific community. In fact, they have hardly tried. Their “science” shows up in blogs and videos designed to persuade the public to accept conclusions that they can’t persuade their scientific peers to accept.

    Does that mean the scientific consensus is correct? Or course not. Scientists have been wrong which is why there is continued research and discussion. But until your outliers can convince their colleagues that their arguments have some merit, they sure aren’t going to persuade me. And their opinions should not form the basis for public policy.

Leave a Reply to jim karlock Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *