At it again: George Will claims evidence of warming is "elusive"
In his Washington Post column, George Will claimed that "evidence" of climate change is "elusive" and that scientists are overstating the threat of warming when they say -- in the words of a September 21 New York Times article Will criticizes -- that a recent "plateau" in temperatures has "no bearing" on the long-term warming trend; in fact, scientists routinely present strong evidence of long-term warming and its consequences -- including a September 2009 United Nations report Will himself cited that says "rapid environmental change is underway with the pace and the scale of climate change accelerating." Will has previously been criticized by the World Meteorological Organization, his own Post colleagues, and others for misusing scientific data to claim that warming may not be occurring.
Will claims "Evidence" of warming is "elusive"; "theories" about man-made climate change "are impervious to evidence"
Will: "[W]hat makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence." In his October 1 Washington Post column, Will claimed that "the word 'plateau' " in a New York Times article about global warming "dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it." Will continued, "The Times says 'a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change.' Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are unfalsifiable, at least in the 'short run.' And the 'short run' is defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence begins to fit the hypotheses." Will further wrote:
Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal is an 80 percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875. [The Washington Post, 10/1/09]
U.N. report Will cited actually provides evidence for warming and its consequences
U.N. report -- cited by Will -- found that "ever more rapid environmental change is underway." Will cited a September 2009 United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) report as evidence that "[w]arnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive." But Will ignored actual evidence in the report that undermines his claim. Indeed, in presenting the findings -- which were "based on the wealth of peer reviewed research published by researchers and institutions since 2006" -- Achim Steiner, UNEP executive director, stated, "The findings indicate that ever more rapid environmental change is underway with the pace and the scale of climate change accelerating along with the confidence among researchers in their forecasts."
U.N. report -- cited by Will -- found that Earth "committed" to warming of at least 1.6 degrees Celsius by century's end. The UNEP report further stated: "Researchers suggest that 0.6 degrees Celsius of the warming we committed to before 2005 has been realized so far. Most of the rest of the 1.6 degrees Celsius total we have committed to will develop in the next 50 years and on through the 21st century. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4 degrees Celsius (Ramanathan and Feng 2008)."
Report highlights growing evidence of devastation to the environment. The report also highlighted several consequences of global warming that scientists are already observing:
Sea ice loss: "Accelerated shrinking of mountain glaciers on every continent, rapid reduction of Arctic sea ice, disintegration of floating ice shelves, and increased melt rates of Earth's three Ice Sheets-Greenland, West Antarctic, and East Antarctic-provide compelling evidence of our changing climate."
Higher ocean temperatures, acidification, coral bleaching: "Climate change further threatens oceans with higher temperatures, increased acidification, and altered circulation and nutrient supplies."
Ecosystem shifts: "Since the compilation of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, serious and irreversible changes in Earth's Ecosystems due to anthropogenic activities are increasingly recognized with greater confidence and better quantification of the processes."
Will falsely cited U.N. in criticizing "enormous 6.3 degrees" prediction
U.N. did not report, as Will stated, "cataclysmic warming" of 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by century's end. While criticizing "[w]arnings about cataclysmic warming," Will asserted, "A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions" [italics in original]. In fact -- as the September 25 Washington Post article Will linked to makes clear -- a coalition of researchers in the United States, including the Sustainability Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ventana Systems, and Robert Corell, who the article stated "chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report's scientific findings," established that figure, not the U.N.
Will routinely criticized for distorting climate data
Will distorted Arctic Climate Research Center about sea ice. Previously, Will twice misused sea ice data to falsely suggest that the data undermine the overwhelming evidence that humans are causing global warming. In a February 27 column, Will falsely claimed that in his February 15 column, he "accurately reported" on the contents of an ACRC document. In fact, the document he cited rebutted the very argument he was making: the ACRC document that Will relied on actually stated that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models. In the words of TPM Muckraker's Zachary Roth, Will's new column "amounts to a stubborn defense of the amazing global warming denialist column he published earlier this month, that was ripped apart by just about everyone and their mother." On April 6, NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) released new data on Arctic sea ice levels that further discredited Will's statements.
Will criticized for "misrepresentation of the data" after distorting World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) data about global temperatures. Will wrote in his April 2 column that "[r]educing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the WMO, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998." Will presented the WMO data as evidence that global warming may not be occurring despite the fact that WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud criticized him for similarly writing in a February 15 column that according to the organization, "there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." Jarraud called Will's February 15 assertion "a misrepresentation of the data and of scientific knowledge."
Will columns criticized by Post colleagues. Will's global warming columns have also recently been criticized by Washington Post editorial board member and cartoonist Tom Toles, Post weather columnist Andrew Freedman, and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander. His fellow editorial columnist Eugene Robinson also said that Will "cross[ed] the line" in spreading global warming misinformation.
This guy does an excellent job at capturing his reasons for AGW skepticism. I agree with most of his points of contention, but, as an environmentalist myself for a long time, I add that the fight against the CO2 bogeyman does more environmental damage than good in that the vast resources that go into "fighting" climate change would be put to far better use addressing actual issues that could be directly influenced if adequately funded. He does touch upon it with his reference to ethanol production, but really this point cannot be emphasized enough.
But galileonardo (clever name, btw, even if you are a troll) suggests below that we haven't (or aren't willing to invest some time investigating the deniers beliefs. And that's just not true in any way, shape or form.
That lack of curiosity comes from the deniers side, from their supporters. It's their side that cherry-picks data and fails to account for all the available evidence and disses real climate science in favor of people wholly unable to make conclusions about climate change.
It's like the 9/11 conspiracy people who say stuff like "it looked like a controlled demolition". Well, in a few ways, it did resemble a controlled demolition. An example would be that as floors collapsed, air was squeezed out of floors below. In most every other aspect, it didn't resemble a controlled demolition - the buildings just magically had the explosives placed where the planes hit, and the planes hitting destroyed stairwells but didn't dislodge the controlled demolition explosives? If you look at the totality of the evidence, there's no way one can claim it was a controlled demolition, but that doesn't stop some crazies from still saying it, and repeating it, even today.
You guys need to stop behaving this way. Our nation and our children deserve better. You should be ashamed.
I used him as an example because he provides a good synopsis of his reasoning for AGW skepticism, and because I agree with many of his points. I have not seen anyone here directly take on a single one of his contentions. Your retort is to laughingly provide a link to RealClimate, where apparently you think resides "someone who really knows what they are talking about." I already covered this in this thread but you may have missed it while you were punching the walls and choking a teddy bear. Who is RealClimate other than Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Caspar Amman, and Raymond S. Bradley, a veritable Who's Who on the IPCC AGW stick-people stage. No bias whatsoever there.
Not sure what Van Jones has to do with this, so I'll skip ahead to your last hurrah. "Our nation and our children deserve better. You should be ashamed." I couldn't agree with you more. Using the CO2 bogeyman to allow the government to confiscate money and control from us and our children is indeed shameful, all the more so since it disguises itself as a green movement that will improve the environment "for the children." For shame.
Get a clue. It's not those of us replying to you who need to invest some time into investigating their beliefs.
Those who choose to apply motivational reasoning, fall back on "beliefs" as if that's how science works.
Well, that may be how your voodoo science works, but not true science. Your are like the mad doctor, who when completely derided for totally nonsensical "proof" that cannot stand up to scrutiny, you run away to the "web" to prove your point. Just like the link you provided.
If Mahoroasy (sp?) had a true scientific point to make, then she should publish it in a peer-reviewed paper. But she won't. Why? Because it is total hogwash!
You can hold on to your beliefs as much as you want. But the scientific community does not work that way, not matter how you try to spin it.
Interesting how the right picks on climate change and evolution as the failures of science, when they bask in the benefits of all the other advances made thanks to science.
The same scientific method used to give you all the technological benefits you enjoy are applied to climate science.
Get over it. Go believe what you want, but stop trying to argue your failed notions. You look silly.
I don't follow some some ignorant belief system that you seem to hold.
You and your type are products of motivated reasoning (see links). No matter what you thing, that's just not how science works. You want to hold on to ignorance, that's your call. But don't put the rest of us down, just because we choose to be more open-minded than you. Keep your ignorance. We have better things to do than to waste our time trying to "convince" your type. We present the facts, your type just wants to argue with cherry-picked "factoids" that don't hold up to scrutiny. That level of scrutiny is kind of like the way papers get peer-reviewed. You ought to try submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal some time. Be prepared to have that ego tested!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
Are you serious? When I first came to this site I tried to have civil discourse with people and was met almost immediately with name-calling and a barrage of insults. Don't put the rest of us down? I chose to fight fire with fire and expect you would do the same. Open-minded? AGW proponents are anything but, especially those that cruise these waters.
You're not much of "environmentalist" if you don't relaize that CO2 is probably the single biggest threat we face, based on what it does, how much of it we produce, and how long it lingers.
Here's more, and here's some MORE.
With "environmentalists" like you, who needs polluters?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Not ONE scentist doing active research in the area of climate change is disputing the basic AGW model. The only questions left to anwser is how long we have, if we can fix it in time, and how bad it will be if we don't.
ever ask a religious fanatic why jesus never told anyone that the earth is round?... it's fun, kinda like asking global warming fanatics what caused 7 ice ages that preceded the advent of the combustible engine...
anyone can pull a scientist out of their a$$ that supports our point of few, so here's mine:
global warming 101
pacific decadal oscillation
Hardly. Spare us the paranoia. MMFA's profanity filter occasionally leads to unintentionally amusing results. I've had it happen to me; I don't recall the exact details but it took me a minute to realize that I had used a word, quite innocently and quite correctly in context, that tripped the filter.
I wish I could remember what it was, the better to illustrate the point, but I'm afraid I can't.
Speaking of banned words there are many that are never accepted. It is a computer that is blocking text, not a person. Some words are frequently used to call people bad names but could be used innocuously. When that happens simply use a another word instead of fantasizing you are the victim of a conspiracy. Good grief.
The score in recent peer-reviewed scientific articles is 925-0 in favor of man-made Global Warming. Try as you might, but you will find no one who can dispute this fact, even on the most crackpot websites.
As far I can tell, Gobal warming deniers seem to be under the impression that they are constantly discovering factors that influence climate that thousands of scientists have overlooked, failed to include in their research or simply suppressed. They don't seem to consider for a moment the possibily that perhaps these experts with years of training have already considered and accounted for their pathetic nitpicking objections. Climatologists don't have time to teach us every aspect of their craft, and sometimes we have no choice but to have faith in the scientific consensus, even if we don't fully understand their work.
In fact much of the laymnen's most basic knowledge about the world is based on little more than the fact the vast majority of scientist say so. Take the existence of atoms for instance. The vast majority of people don't really understand we how came to know that almost everything consists of atoms. We heard of the existence of atoms from a trusted authority figure at some point in our childhood, and we believed it, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps even scientists must rely on faith to a degree on this matter, as no one person can replicate the hundreds of years of expirimentation it took to reach a solidly based conclusion that the world consists of atoms.
However, if we were to discard the scientific consensus on this matter simply because we cannot ourselves verify it, we would obviously destroy the foundations of modern society. So we must simply have faith that what the scientists tell us is true.
Being fed far more information than one can possibly verify personally is part of the human condition, and acknowledging this is good thing. But what we shouldn't do is selectively pick scientific findings we are going to believe and which we will discard based on our biases. If you don't believe the scientific consensus on Global Warming, that's fine, but you ought be consistent and doubt all the other one's too. Otherwise we are in the situation you describe, pulling "experts" out of our backsides to support whatever we want to believe, and creating our own reality. There lies grave danger.
Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Yes, precisely.
Rightwing fanatics use this "scientific method" (snicker, snicker) all the time - they somehow imagine that they have uncovered secrets that no one else knows, or they have insights better than people trained in the subject. I want to ask them why they're sharing them with us instead of with the people in a position to publish and promote these brilliant ideas! LOL
I know you would rather hang with the Amen crowd and never hear opposition to your scripture. It would be easier to remain nestled in your comfort zone. Easy solution. Don't bother to read my comments. Perhaps others who are not so deeply entrenched in the AGW fantasy might appreciate some of my thoughts.
It's not me who is unwilling to listen to diverse ideas and opposition.
But I am not willing to listen/read nonsense and stand idly by! The person living in a fantasy world would be you. If you think that Stephen McIntyre has a leg to stand on, then you should be ashamed of yourself and you should go back to school to learn how to think. He doesn't know what he's talking about, and his methods stink, and his preconceived ideas about AGW color his every move.
I don't behave in the same way that he does. You can throw out baseless accusations like that every day, but that doesn't make them true. I don't have knee-jerk reactions to anything I am presented with, ever.
And I'm not a fanatic for anything but reality and truth and facts. I will gladly admit to that any day of the week. You should be ashamed of what you are a fanatic for - a sham scientific argument that can't hold water and can't survive even the simplest peer-review.
"I don't have knee-jerk reactions to anything I am presented with, ever."
Your reactions to opponents of AGW is about as knee-jerk and angry as any I have seen here. Me thinks thou doth protest too much. And you go on again about the shame thing:
"You should be ashamed of what you are a fanatic for - a sham scientific argument..."
I know you hate me saying it, but please go find that mirror again.
Look fir 5 sec and found 500 scientist that refute man made global warming.
That is another oft-repeated line regurgitated by the AGW propagandists. It doesn't take long to find peer-reviewed scientific articles that go against the AGW company line. Nor is it difficult to find scientists who have varying degrees of faith in the AGW theory (at the bottom of that page you'll find some more of those peer-reviewed publications that you claim do not exist). Just takes a bit of research.
The bottom line is the "consensus" is a fraud that was devised to stifle opposing arguments. And the effort has been a great success in light of the tenor of many of the comments on this page. There are serious issues with the "predictions" of the AGW models, never mind the problems with the actual data I alluded to before. Go ahead and read some of the papers and see if you might emerge a bit more sympathetic to the opposing viewpoints.
I've looked at many of them, and all I see is an attempt to trick the uneducated into thinking that because scientists study climate factors other than greenhouse gases or because there are aspects of global warming theory that are still being investigated, it means that scientists dispute anthropogenic global warning. Like I said, sheer propaganda.
"While admittedly incomplete and highly approximate general circulation models of the atmosphere predict that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the air’s CO2 content will raise mean global air temperature a few degrees Celsius, natural experiments based upon real-world observations suggest that a global warming of no more than a few tenths of a degree could result from such a CO2 increase."
"In a real atmosphere some important restrictions have to be met if the gravity induced GE is to be well developed. It will always be partially developed on atmosphere bearing planets. A noteworthy implication is that the calculated values of AGW, accepted by many contemporary climate scientists, are thus irrelevant and probably quite insignificant (not detectable) in relation to natural processes causing climate change."
"We speculate that the observed surface temperature changes might be a result of local surface heating processes and not related to radiative greenhouse gas forcing."
"Quantification of the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is confounded by numerous unresolved climate issues—both anthropogenic issues, such as the direct and indirect role of multi-component aerosols, deforestation and land-use changes, and also natural issues, such as volcanic forcing and the influence of solar forcing."
"A review of the recent refereed literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume, and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial periods of the past 650,000 years, even under the 'fast response' framework where the convenient if artificial distinction between forcing and feedback is assumed."
"We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records."
"The impact on model response to doubling of CO2, on the other hand, is quite small and in most cases negligible."
"Since the models underestimate the long-range persistence of the atmosphere and overestimate the trends, our analysis suggests that the anticipated global warming is also overestimated by the models."
"But meaningful and credible scientific confidence, resting either on the traditional deterministic method of quantification or the probabilistic mode of measuring change (as favoured by, for example, Washington, 2000; Räisänen and Palmer, 2001; Schneider, S.H., 2002) cannot yet be made to such computer experiments because climate models do not yield sufficiently reliable, quantitative results in reproducing well-documented climatic changes around the world."
"We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half."
"Drawing on participant observation and interviews with climate modelers and the atmospheric scientists with whom they interact, the study discusses how modelers, and to some extent knowledge producers in general, are sometimes less able than some users to identify shortcomings of their models."
"Model errors and uncertainties are quantitatively compared with the forcing due to doubling CO2, and they are shown to be too large for reliable model evaluations of climate sensitivities."
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist."
"But it seems self-evident to us that, recognizing the limited due diligence of paleoclimate journal peer review, it would have been prudent for someone to have actually checked MBH98 data and methods against original data before adopting MBH98 results in the main IPCC promotional graphics."
"These studies are hardly 'independent'. If all the authors in the multiproxy articles are listed, one sees much overlapping. Mann himself was a co-author of two supposedly 'independent' studies; his sometime co-author (as well as Bradley’s sometime co-author) Jones was co-author of two of the others. Even Crowley and Lowery [2000], where there is no apparent overlap, stated that they used data supplied by Jones. This hardly amounts to 'independence' in any conventional use of the term."
"The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites."
"Furthermore, thermometer warming of the 20th century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records."
"According to the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers, essentially all of the anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1750 is due to the increase in carbon dioxide concentration. This means that if the sun is responsible for 36-50% of the temperature rise since 1900, the IPCC is using too large a value for its coefficient relating radiative forcing to changes in carbon dioxide concentration. This is important because a smaller value of α reduces the sensitivity of the earth’s climate to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations—a result that has significant policy implications."
The article's in your linked that do dispute man-made global warming have been reviewed alright, and the reviews weren't good.
Take for instance the 2003 article by Willie Soon, Salie Baliunas (*Alarm bells*) et al., "Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al". Thirteen authors cited by this work disputed the interpretations that Soon and Baliunas gave to their work. In fact, half of the editorial board at the magazine "Climate Science" resigned after it was published. Furthermore, this study was funded in part by the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. You could say it's been peer-reviewed, but not in the way I meant when I said "peer-reviewed".
And if you care to notice, these clowns, Baliunas and Soon, were involved in about half the articles cited by your link which actually disputed Global Warming. And the authors of other one's are equally hucksterific, like this Chilinger fellow, who apparantly works for Saudi Aramco, natiional oil company of Saudi Arabia.
The articles that are written by real scientists address unrelated topics like tidal currents in the Arabian Sea. I guess this blog assumes its readers won't actually look at them.
The more you dispute my point about peer-reviewed articles, the more you prove it. There simply are no peer-reviewed, respected articles to be found which dispute the scientific consensus on Global Warming.
There is near unanimous agreement among real scientists about man-made Global Warming. Like I said, it could be a conspiracy, but it's about as likely as the periodic table being a conspiracy. We just have to trust the scientists, ok?
It's time to acknowledge that the cult you believe in is taking you for a ride.
Another mirror moment, my good cherry-picker.
"...and the reviews weren't good...Thirteen authors cited by this work disputed the interpretations that Soon and Baliunas gave to their work."
And that would be 13 out of how many authors cited? Looks like Soon cited over 100 of them. Where are the comments from the very large balance of authors? Are they the "silent majority" I'm sure you dread?
"[H]alf of the editorial board of the magazine 'Climate Science' resigned after it was published."
Who exactly resigned? Let's see. Here's one example. Hans von Storch, an AGW climate scientist. Is that the same Hans who said, "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad." Is it this same guy?
What was that Hans? I don't think Millie can hear you. The decay of the hockey stick, eh? Hmm. He seems to be saying some other stuff about the issues with the science, something about "lack of healthy discussion" and "gate keeping of influential scientists" and "papers raising critical points had a hard time." Who knew?
But you absolutely have to love and cherish this quote (who knew I was prophetic?): "Hopefully, sociology of science will later study this unfortunate period of climate science, but we may conclude now that science itself has indeed corrected claims of premature knowledge." Were it true Hans. Were it true. Millie and the gang ain't heard the news just yet. Unfortunate period indeed, where politics and sensationalism overpowered scientific reason, the "dark era" I alluded to earlier.
How about Mitsuru Ando? He resigned too right? What's he been up to? An expert reviewer for the IPCC? You don't say.
Here's Otto Kinne's take on the whole maelstrom. The key quote about Soon & Baliunas: "Major conclusions of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millenium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide’ (p. 104). While these statements may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication." Read the whole thing. It will be enlightening.
Clare Goodess may still be on the Kool Aid but I was unable to find more recent offerings from her. Here's her angle from soon after the "incident." So dramatic. I would like to hear from her now that the wound has healed. Storch or Ando camp? I just don't know. Back to your comments.
"Furthermore, this study was funded in part by the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE."
How much exactly? 5%. Contrast skeptic funding with the billions (with a "b") spent by the government to fund alarmist research each and every year.
You go on to say "There simply are no peer-reviewed, respected articles..." and "There is near unanimous agreement among real scientists..." in nearly the same breath. Sounds like you're waffling a bit. From "925-0" to "near unanimous agreement" in just one day...we're making progress.
"It's time to acknowledge that the cult you believe in is taking you for a ride."
Yet another mirror moment.
This is a contradiction how? So the fact that there are no peer-reviewed articles which dispute the AGW consensus= there is 100% unanimous agreement among scientists themselves?
My question for you is this; the chances are about 99.9999999% that you don't really understand how scientists came to know of the existence of atoms. You probably simply believe the scientists because the consensus among them is so overwhelming. So if you are skeptical of the scientific consensus on one subject, AGW, why not be skeptical of it on other matters? If you trust what the scientists tell you about atoms, which you have never seen, nor can see, why not about AGW? If I did like you with AGW, and linked to "experts" who disputed the consensus on atoms, but were not respected by the scientific community, would you consider them trustworthy? Why not?
We have no choice but to respect the opinion of the worldwide community of experts. And if you believe the scientific community is conspiring to suppress dissent on this topic, you will have to believe that about the vast majority of climatologists across dozens of countries.
How exactly do you explain the fact that the scientific opinion on AGW is so unanimously wrong across so many countries?
I'll give you a hint; just because these peer-reviewed articles note other factors influencing climate, doesn't mean they dispute man-made global warming.
In fact you have proven my point; this website searched high and low for peer-reviewed articles which dispute man-made Global Warming, and all they could find was articles unrelated to the subject.
You are the lazy one, and it is your deep faith in AGW deniers that is the problem here and that which allows you to brush off facts. It's not opposing viewpoints that we reject - it's nonsense and lies and distortions and cherry=picked data that we have issues with. The fact is that you, on the other hand, blindly stick with propaganda and you can't even grasp that fact apparently!
You certainly did.
First, note that what you offer are blog posts, not research published in a peer-reviewed journal. With that always in mind, I admit to having only quickly scanned the links but I still have to say that I'm unimpressed.
For example, the first link says the "global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature." That is a crock. I don't know of anyone who's ever said that. Not only researchers but even the most staunch nanny-nanny naysayers agree that the average temperature of the Earth has varied by a good number of degrees over time.
What the Earth will do is seek an equilibrium, a balance, between energy in and energy out - but there are so many things that can disturb (and have disturbed) that equilibrium from the very-predictable and very-long term (such as the precession of the Earth's orbit) to the somewhat-predicable (such as the radiance of the Sun) to the relatively unpredictable (such as large-scale volcanic activity) that no one would rationally claim that "the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature." That's just silly. It's a straw figure.
What global warming theory says is that an equilibrium that had persisted for several hundred years if not longer has being disturbed by human activities that have lead to the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with the result that the average temperature of the Earth is rising as the climate seeks a new equilibrium.
So right at the top he misstates what he's supposedly critiquing.
He refers several times to "forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect)" - but that is, again, wrong. A "forcing" is something that drives climate in a certain direction. There can be both natural and human-generated forcings; the attention of rational people, who are concerned about global warming, is on the latter both because it's what's causing the problem and it's the one we can do something about. The point here is that an "effect," the result of a forcing, isn't a "feedback" unless it is a new forcing. (Just to be clear, there can be negative feedbacks, which act in the opposite direction of the original forcing and thus reduce its effect, and positive feedbacks, which act in the same direction as the original forcing and thus enhance its effect. One of the big dangers of global warming is the development of positive feedback loops such that the temperature would continue to rise even if we generated no additional greenhouse gases.)
There are two links in the text on that page. One is to the other link you give. There, he describes his "favorite candidate" for a natural source for global warming, and in the very first paragraph he says he's claiming it accounts for "three-quarters of the warming trend" during the 20th century. So even his own model, his own "favorite candidate," admits to the reality of anthropogenic global warming - even he is only arguing over how much of the warming is human-created, not where or not human-created warming is occurring.
What's more, in the next paragraph he says "The main arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: 'What else COULD it be? After all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so what's the point of looking for any other cause?'" That is such a stinking pile that I'm grateful that Smell-o-Vision is still fictional. I mean, how many ways could that be wrong? For one, CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but it's not the only one or even the most powerful one. (Methane, for example, is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.) For another, the idea that scientists are simply dismissing out of hand any other possibility is not only ridiculous, it is a puerile slam on the entire community of atmospheric scientists.
Oh, the other link off that page, the one you didn't include, is to his own analysis of feedbacks, which he says show an "insensitive" climate, that is, one not readily affected by human activity. Again, it's a blog post, not a peer-reviewed article and while I freely admit to not being an expert at statistical analysis, it frankly appears to me that he just analyzed the numbers different ways until one of the results looked the way he wanted.
So much for the links, what about the author himself? Well, yes, Dr. Roy Spencer is a leading nanny-nanny naysayer on climate change. His 2008 book Climate Confusion not only argued that human impact on the climate is so small as to be safely ignored, he claimed the very best thing we can do for the world's poor is to keep on right on doin' exactly what we're doin' now.
But he's rather more than that. For one, he's a creationist, having said in 2005 that creationism "actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution." For another, he was a "scientific advisor" to something called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, which declared itself to be "committed to bringing a proper and balanced Biblical view of stewardship to the critical issues of environment and development." He's associated with both the Heartland Institute, a right-wing outfit promoting "free market" solutions to just about any problem you can think of, including global warming, and the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing think tank.
In 2004, he wrote that "either you believe that the world has been created for mankind's use, with a certain resiliency and stability, or you believe it is just a cosmic accident, fragile, and overly sensitive to our meddling" - a particularly interesting statement in light of his repeated efforts to prove the climate is "insensitive." In that same article he compared toxic waste to deer droppings.
A year earlier, he and a partner had published an analysis that claimed that the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere, was actually cooling, not warming. Two years later it turned out they had screwed up the calculations and the troposphere was actually warming, and warming in a way that was in large agreement with global warming computer models. Despite having to admit they were wrong, the pair said "our view hasn't changed," that is, even though they were wrong, they were still right.
Two final tidbits: One, in 2007 he asserted that "very few scientists in the world - possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, 'big picture' understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming." Which is probably why the IPCC, for example, relies on the combined effort of a few thousand scientists in relevant disciplines from around the world - and why, by his own words, Spencer's lone-wolf nanny-nanny naysaying is not as impressive as some here (eagerly) find it.
And two, he also insists that despite his connections to the Heartland Institute, which has gotten a good deal of money from Exxon-Mobil, "My research has always been 100% U.S. Government-funded." Which would seem to be a poke in the eye to those who claim that researchers keep finding new support for anthropogenic global warming because "that's where the grant money is."
A large swath of Global warming deniers seem to fancy themselves jaded intellectuals, who like modern day Galileos refuse to go with the herd. In reality, their behavior closely mirrors that of the creationists, ufo hunters and crypto-zoologists.
They come up with nitpicking objections to the science that don't take in the big picture, but they seem damning to the pseudo-scientist because the pseudo-scientist doesen't actually have a full understanding of the matter. Like the Global Warming deniers who observe that sunspot activity differs from year to year, and therefore maintain scientists have overlooked a major factor in the earth's climate, never considering that perhaps they have already accounted for this variable. Nevertheless, the pseudo-scientist is ignorant of the science as a whole and he believes his worries have simply gone ignored. He then whines incessantly about how he has been unfairly treated as a kook by the scientific community and fancies himself a heroic defender of THE TRUTH THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT.
Here's a rule for the deniers; when a scientist's work doesn't make sense to you, it's probably because you don't fully understand of the matter, not the other way around.
Get back in your place, peasants!
please don't confuse my questioning of man-made global warming with my denying global warming exists, which i don't...
But anyway to my point....
I started to look up your list of "these folks". Anyone with a high-school level ability to do some research will find that your scientists are not entirely correct in their positions, and were called on it by the scientific community. One works for the petroleum industry.
So, when you go citing your references, you may want to read how well your "folks" stand up to scrutiny. Like your failed arguments, they fall flat.
A few examples of your "folks" below. Enjoy the clarity of reality.
Sallie Baliunas:
13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[13]
George V. Chilingarian is a Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California (USC). He is one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry.
David H. Douglass is an American physicist at the University of Rochester. Douglass is a global warming skeptic whose current research focuses on natural climate forces. A 2007 study by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[1] However, a 2008 paper published by a 17-member team led by Ben Santer noted errors in the Douglass study, and found instead that the models and observations were not statistically different. [2]
SLRTX, science has established that posters with self-inflating monikers generally post garbled talking points coupled with confused research. There are many peer-reviewed studys which back me up.
So I guess you didn't notice in your quick scan that he includes links to his own peer-reviewed publications?
"So right at the top he misstates what he's supposedly critiquing."
That's not cherry-picking right? Do you think that maybe in a "Global Warming 101" link that perhaps Spencer was simplifying the theory and equilibrium discussion?
"[H]e describes his 'favorite candidate' for a natural source for global warming, and in the very first paragraph he says he's claiming it accounts for 'three-quarters of the warming trend' during the 20th century. So even his own model, his own 'favorite candidate,' admits to the reality of anthropogenic global warming - even he is only arguing over how much of the warming is human-created, not where or not human-created warming is occurring."
Classic. Spencer says that one source of warming (PDO) accounts for a full 3/4 of 20th century warming and you leap to the conclusion that he thinks the other quarter is AGW. That is rich! Spencer makes no mention of sources like the NAO or AMO Mojib Latif referred to. Do you think that maybe these and other sources could possibly account for Spencer's other quarter rather than your purported and preposterous AGW insertion?
"CO2 is the most abundant greenhouse gas."
My word you are trying to pull a fast one aren't you? Are you paid to do this? You completely ignore established science with that statement. 800-pound gorilla anyone? Water vapor accounts for something like 80% of the Earth's greenhouse effect! Why would you even say that if you were not attempting to mislead people? Why don't you write Al and ask him to give up his gassy Angus since methane is "20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is"? No, let's go all Luddite on the world instead.
Flat-earthers like you are hurt the environmental movement and science. Self-assured zealots like you have hijacked environmental causes, and, even more egregiously, the "scientific consensus" the AGW fanatics have propped up for far too long will be long regarded as a dark era for the scientific method I also hold dearly.
Galileo, one of my namesakes, is the perfect historical figure to allude to (you called it an "embarrassment" the other day). When he first proposed his anti-establishment heliocentric view (nature above man), he was forced to stop work on his theory by his geocentric Roman Inquisitors (today's AGW religious followers such as yourself). When he could no longer remain silent and could no longer suppress what science was clearly telling him, he published his views in his Dialogue. He was tried, convicted of heresy, and given a life sentence of house arrest by the church.
Pretty much history repeating itself with AGW. You and Hansen and Gore try to silence and marginalize critics, but it isn't working anymore (hence the desperation and increased alarmism). I can understand your apparent frustration. Modern-day Inquisitors such as yourself have invested so much of your being into your belief in this false theory (just as had your Roman predecessors) that you have no choice but to lash out at those who try to bring you around to reality. It is your instinct to attack that which threatens your core. So like you and the others here, you can't help but try to belittle your opposition and claim "global warming realities" as I saw one of your cohorts mention are on your side. But they're not. Galileo was right. I am right. McIntyre, Lindzen, Dyson, right, right, right. CO2 is not the bogeyman your ilk purport it to be.
The AGW house of cards was built on flimsy models that are slowly but surely falling apart. When new evidence that trounces AGW is presented, it is "sponsored by big oil," or we are told "the debate is over." More frequently though, the goal posts are moved yet again as the data is "corrected" (the "nothing to see here" defense). It took Congressional intervention to even allow scientists to get their hands on the Mann data (a quarantine supported by the NSF) despite the research being publicly funded. In fact, getting source code from most of the "consensus" modelers sited in your "additional reconstructions" link you posted a few days ago (more on that below) is like pulling teeth, making independent verification nearly impossible. That's science?
There will be a day that the wool is finally yanked off the wolf political movement that is AGW. It is a shame it has progressed this far, but, with such money to be made by such a huge swath of opportunistic pigs it is no surprise that the propaganda machine has been so effective. The true victim, aside from the people of the Earth (especially those in under-developed nations), is the environment itself.
So many resources have been shifted from worthy environmental causes to combat the phantom menace that is AGW. Trillions will be pillaged despite the fact that the IPCC itself concludes, "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized."
I can't stress that enough! While oceans are depleted, species eradicated, and rainforests clearcut RIGHT NOW we are offering some monstrous Luddite sacrifice to the gods in penance for our evil SUVs and incandescent light bulbs and our efforts will have negligible effects! Instead of focusing on these issues where impact could be had almost immediately, we divert much of our budgets toward some pie-in-the-sky, feel-good philosophy that will do more damage than good (best of luck America with cap and trade).
Back to your reconstructions you had linked to Larry: "nine additional reconstructions of temperature changes over the past 1000 years [that] largely agree with the 'hockey stick.'" You fail to mention that the three stooges (Schweingruber, Briffa, and Mann) co-authored 6 out of 10 of those reconstructions! Your citation could not illustrate more clearly the collaborative AGW cabal.
How do the other 4 reconstructions fare? Your old friend McIntyre has some issues with Crowley and Lowery. How does Sonechkin feel more recently about reconstructions like his published in 2005? Take a look. I did not read Huang's paper but the journal details should tell you something: looks like he used AGW superstars Jones, Mann, and Crowley (in combination with his own) to derive his "independent estimate." As far as I can tell, only Oerlemans' paper could remotely be classified as an "independent" reconstruction, but it is the shortest record of all ten reconstructions!
Nice try slipping that by unchallenged. The AGW/IPCC/Mann stick approach has been shot down despite repeated efforts to resurrect it (can you say MWP?). Mojib Latif is just the latest to publicly assert the shortcomings of current climate models (despite his ardent AGW views). There will be more like him.
As for you, I find it humorous that you attempt to discredit people like McIntyre with your Socialist reference the other day (sorry, I am not on the AGW payroll so I could not respond in time). Yet on your self-advertised blog, you claim yourself to be "radical Left" and a "democratic socialist/green with an anarchist bent."
What of your reliability? Seems pretty cloudy to me. Fogging up the issue even more, you add, "The only isms I wholeheartedly endorse are skepticism and eclecticism." Hah! Skepticism? Please do tell how that meshes with your AGW skeptic hatred. I have a few more isms to add to your list by the way: socialism, Marxism, fanaticism, liberalism, apocalypticism, monotheism, fundmentalism, collectivism, messianism, entryism, absolutism, primitivism, nihilism, millenarianism, fideism, malism, triumphalism.
Spencer is a hack.
His support of intelligent design over the fact of evolution just proves he's waaay out there on the fringe.
Just because someone has the paper, does not make them a good scientist. It takes years of good application of the scientific method, and quality papers in peer-reviewed papers to make a good scientist.
Good god. To think that there's this vast conspiracy of scientists wringing their hands to cause problems for you is just sheer fantasy.
You are applying motivational reasoning.
Try these links:
I like this one:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Even you may understand it.
Global warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080728farley.php
ice ages
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/
Animation of orbital changes and axial tilt
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter16/graphics/71_Orbital_Fluctuations/A_71.swf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Natur.363..531I
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E16.7.pdf.xpdf
I guess you didn't notice that it was still a blog post, which may or may not have reflected peer-reviewed research (a reference hardly proves that). You also didn't notice that his earlier attempt to shoot down the "hockey stick" was itself shot down in flames.
Spencer was simplifying the theory and equilibrium discussion
He wasn't "simplifying," he was distorting, just like you. He was creating straw figures to attack.
your purported and preposterous AGW insertion
So you're saying there is no anthropogenic global warming? You're that loopy? You deny the science that far?
trying to pull a fast one ... ignore established science ... Water vapor accounts for something like 80% of the greenhouse effect ... attempting to mislead people
This outburst of petulance, accusation, and misdirection arose because I referred to CO2 as "the most abundant greenhouse gas." First, I will acknowledge that I should have said the most abundant anthropogenic greenhouse gas. (And before anyone leaps, no, I am not saying that human activity is the only source of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am saying it is the most abundant greenhouse gas whose concentration can be directly related to human activity.) Next, we can argue about if water vapor is actually a gas or is merely often referred to as one for convenience because it acts much like one (you can set chemists at each other's throats over that), but that's neither here nor there. What's actually important here is that you quite conveniently ignore that fact that I wrote what I did in response to Spencer's patently false assertion that the case for anthropogenic global warming relies entirely on CO2 concentrations (and therefore must of necessity ignore other factors including some obvious ones). By flooding my statement with hollow objections, you attempted to drown its meaning: Spencer was arguing dishonestly.
Why don't you write Al
What the devil is this nanny-nanny naysayer obsession with Al Gore? Some unrequited lust? What?
let's go all Luddite on the world instead
I have no idea what that means and neither do you. (Yes, I know what "Luddite" means, probably better than you because I know the historical context in which the term arose. But your statement's obvious meaning - the only alternative to doing nothing is to destroy all technology along with, apparently, certain farm animals - is so numbingly vacuous that it's kinder to assume it's meaningless.)
Flat-earther ... Self-assured zealot
Hilarious! You ignore the scientific consensus, ignore the continually-growing body of data, desperately nitpick at details, embrace conspiracy theories where those whose work supports human-driven global warming are "opportunistic pigs," "stooges," and "fanatics" and somehow Al Gore (there's that obsession again) is personally "silencing critics" - and you claim I'm a "flat-earther zealot" who rejects the scientific method? That is fall-down-on-the-floor funny.
In fact, you are an ignorant buffoon whose view is based on paranoia every bit as deep as that as the truthers, the birthers, and the creationists who, exactly like you, are constantly claiming the case (for them, for evolution; for you, for anthropogenic global warming) is "slowly but surely falling apart." It's all about conspiracies, concealed evidence, hidden Truths, a "collaborative cabal." Every question raised, even if it is rebutted, "trounces AGW." Every correction of a model, every adjustment in the face of new information, is "moving the goalposts" even though doing that is a basic part of the scientific method in which you (apparently speciously) claim to believe.
You are so wrapped up in your fantasies of "wolf political movements," "phantom menaces," and "monstrous Luddite sacrifices to the gods," so desperate to avoid facing the fact that there is an environmental problem that can't be solved by separating your trash but might actually require you to do something you don't just feel like doing - it's so bad that you either don't even understand what you read or simply don't care. For example, you quote the IPCC as saying "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized." That quote is from the 2007 Synthesis Report and it specifically refers to predictions of what would happen if greenhouse gas emissions were to continue to grow at current rates until 2100! More simply, it's what would happen if we do nothing for the next 90 years! Yet you claim it means the IPCC is throwing up its collective hands and saying, as you put it, "our efforts will have negligible effects."
How can I take you seriously when you are so transparently incapable of understanding plain English?
But then again, aside from spinning grand conspiracy theories, an incapacity to understand plain English appears to be your forte. You have repeatedly claimed that Mojib Latif "admits there has been cooling [and] admits that the cooling will continue" and that such "admissions" should make us reject "the alarmist ramblings of Latif and his Copenhacks" who are "starting to sweat." That is utter and complete nonsense. What Latif said is that scientists should focus more on decadal effects precisely because the determined know-nothings like you are trying to jump on short-term trends to deny the existence of longer-term trends. Turning that into an "admission" that he was wrong and crackpots like you are right is a complete fabrication. You are again arguing just like the creationists who are forever proclaiming "the case for evolution is falling apart" when biologists argue about the precise details and mechanisms of the process even as they endorse the concept.
I mean, what in heaven's name are you talking about, "admits?" What "admission?" For the past couple of years, world average temperature has been relatively stable. That's not an "admission," that's just reading the numbers. No one not drunk on the fantasies of the denialists could or would claim otherwise. The cooling will continue? It probably will - for a time (in fact, it was already predicted) precisely because of those natural cycles of warming and cooling which the nanny-nanny naysayers like you insist the researchers ignore. Nothing in what Latif said could be taken by a rational person as a rejection of anthropogenic global warming rather than simply the advice to focus on the fact that it is an overall, longer-term trend, not a short-term one.
Even so, for a "cooling trend," this one has quite a ways to go:
- The 20 warmest years on record have occurred since 1981.
- The 15 warmest years on record have occurred since 1991.
- Seven of the 8 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, as have 8 of the warmest 10.
- Every year of the period 2000-2008 was warmer than any recorded year prior to 1990.
- The 1990s were the warmest decade on record; barring some climatological disaster in the next few months, the decade 2000-2009 will beat it.
As for your complaints against those additional reconstructions of the "hockey stick," you again rely completely on innuendo, insult ("the three stooges"), paranoia ("the collaborative AGW cabal"), and, in the case of Sonechkin, yet another failure to understand clear English: Sonechkin was in the link you cite acknowledging the limitations of the use of proxies, something which any reputable scientist would do (and which Mann, Bradley, Hughes did in their original paper) but which to you somehow becomes a retraction of their own work. So even though those other reconstructions involved nine different peer-reviewed papers with a total of 24 authors and used different combinations of proxies and still came to results that were in broad agreement, they are all to be discounted because of some, what, some grand conspiracy among "opportunistic pigs" to hide The Truth?
(Sidebar for those unfamiliar with the term, a "proxy" is something that can be used in attempting to determine temperatures for periods for which you have no direct observations. Tree rings, borehole samples, historical records, and more can serve as proxies.)
The AGW/IPCC/Mann stick approach has been shot down
That depends on how strictly you interpret your terms. The very-straight shaft "hockey stick" (with, everyone seems to forget, large error bars) probably doesn't have a whole lot of defenders, but a, if you will, warped shaft "hockey stick," which still expresses the central principle that recent warming is unprecedented in several hundreds years if not longer, is flying high and in quite robust health. One more time, you argue like the creationists who claim that evolution has been "shot down" because there are very few strict Darwinists left.
can you say MWP
Yes, I can. I can also say that the so-called Medieval Warm Period very likely did not exist except as a temporary reversal of a long-term cooling trend and was limited to parts of the Northern Hemisphere. And while there is evidence that temperatures in the period were similar to those as the beginning of the 20th century, there is nothing to say they were as warm as those at the end of the 20th century.
Latif is just the latest to publicly assert the shortcomings of current climate models ... There will be more like him
Of course there will. There already are. Openly acknowledging limitations of the models used is, again, something any reputable scientist would do routinely, you "I just loooove the scientific method" clown. That's one of the reasons why in judging something like global warming you have to look at the overall weight of the evidence, not at individual nitpickers the way you do. And the weight of that evidence is overwhelming that anthropogenic global warming is real, it's effects can be seen already, and it is a significant danger.
you attempt to discredit people like McIntyre with your Socialist reference the other day ... on your self-advertised blog, you claim yourself to be "radical Left" and a "democratic socialist/green with an anarchist bent."
You really do need some remedial classes in understanding what you read. I said that someone "flippantly but pretty accurately" described McIntyre as trying to discredit the vast majority of climate scientists as "Socialists engaged in hoaxing All Of Mankind." Yes, "a "democratic socialist/green with an anarchist bent" is part of how I described myself. How that in any way conflicts with or contradicts my reference to McIntyre is a complete mystery. (Another mystery is how in quoting "radical Left" you managed to miss the word "nonviolent.")
By the way, what is that "self-advertised blog" line? The only reference to my blog I recall making anywhere in this entire discussion is when someone asked if they could quote something I wrote here and I said fine but if it was appropriate, I'd like a credit. So what the hell are you talking about?
Skepticism? Please do tell how that meshes with your AGW skeptic hatred.
I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories, I'm skeptical of arguments built on innuendo, I'm skeptical of claims that rely on on paranoia about powerful forces hiding The Truth, and I'm skeptical of people who claim to love science while showing so little understanding of the process. And I do not easily tolerate fools.
Oh, but thanks for coming by my site. I certainly can use the traffic.
I am not saying that there is no AGW, just that it is completely overblown by the IPCC, world governments, and the media. For the sake of complete disclosure though, I do feel that AGW is negligible and CO2 is certainly not the climate driver it is purported to be.
I brought up Al because you brought up methane as being such a powerful greenhouse gas and he is the hypocritical poster child for the "Do as I say, not as I do" set. Plus, I blame him for further mainstreaming the AGW fraud. So no, no unrequited lust, though I do think Tipper is pretty hot for a 60-year-old. On an unrelated note, I find it funny you always use the term "nanny-nanny naysayers" to refer to skeptics considering the nanny government trends.
The use of the term Luddite is quite appropriate in my opinion as it captures the nostalgia many of your set apparently have for the good old days before those horseless carriages ruined the world. And it also plays to the efforts being made to "educate" underdeveloped countries about the evils of fossil fuels.
Flat-earther. You like that huh? I do like to turn the tables a bit since I have been called that plenty of times. And I'm surprised you would take offense at zealot. I thought you would wear that badge proudly. Despite your protests though, both terms are appropriate. Many of your claims about me can in turn be made of you. I especially like, "Ignore the continually-growing body of data." Check.
And I don't understand your fascination with conspiracy theories. Some unrequited lust? I've said it before, but conspiracy implies something done in secret. The control mechanisms being put in place are no secret. I'll touch more on that in my response to you below at your other rant.
As would be expected, you misinterpret and misrepresent my use of "moving the goalposts." What you claim to be part of the scientific method is the exact opposite in my usage. AGW has been a hyper-inflated theory (especially since 2001) largely perpetuated, as noted before, by the IPCC, gov, and media hype. I understand that many scientists do admit shortcomings in their models and theories (many, many shortcomings in the case of AGW), but the models themselves are simultaneously unjustly elevated by some of the same scientists in tandem with the wider political elements. Still other activist-scientists like Hansen use their high stations to advance their extreme political agendas, joining in the sensationalism. The snowballing result has been an overwhelmingly AGW-biased portrayal of the science to the public who are repeatedly told about the "consensus" and doomsday. The moving of the goalposts comes every time a skeptic takes a chip out of the theory. As with Mann, the chips are somehow "filled" and the skeptic is "exposed" as a "big oil hack" or "long-retired professor." You can call what happens the scientific method. I'll keep calling it scientific fraud.
I will concede to your point regarding the IPCC 4th Report The Physical Science Basis. My source provided only extracts and the quote was taken out of context. But it isn't as though the idea of the irreversible nature of GW regardless of what we do isn't starting to rear its ugly head in the AGW clique. Susan Solomon seems to think so. That's Susan "IPCC Co-Chair Nobel Peace Prize Winner" Solomon. One of yours. One of the "world's top climate scientists." Do you think she'll bring that dessert with her to the AR5 outline submission in Bali later this month?
What the devil is this pappy-pappy paysayer obsession with Mojib Latif? Some unrequited lust? You should first off drop the cooling references. Remember? Most people here still won't admit to cooling as they are too busy mocking Beck, Hannity, and Bastardi. And you say the cooling was predicted? By who? IPCC AR4? Latif is funny because now that cooling (AGW zealots skip to next sentence) does appear to be the reality he "fills the chip" and says but "you just wait until 2030 and you'll see, shazam 3 degrees plus rise in 70 years...you can trust me, I'm not like the others." The "nothing to see here" defense and right back to the AGW scripture. Sorry for my lack in confidence in the models.
As for your "ways to go" reference to the cooling trend, no need to worry. Latif has us back to about 1990 levels by about 2030 and we won't even have to lift a finger. But I guess you'll be back here then saying, "The 35 warmest years on record have occurred since 1991."
Read the lead paragraph in your friend Steve's post here about Sonechkin. Too bad BradleyMann didn't get the memo. What you claim is "the overall weight of the evidence" is in my opinion the overly-weighted dependence of AGW on lightweight evidence. "Openly acknowledging limitations of the models" is not the same as the "consensus" sham many scientists (and you s well) continue to foist upon the public. If even 1% of the ink devoted to AGW talked about the "limitations" vs. the "consensus" and "certainties" and claims like yours that "it is a significant danger" then your statements would carry more weight. I'd venture to say it's more like 0.1%, but in your mind these model limitations you seem to think everyone is aware of are given proper weight in how the evidence is presented.
Violent, non-violent, irrelevant. And you can't see the irony in a "democrat/socialist with an anarchist bent" laughing at the perceived McIntyre witch hunt against "Socialists engaged in hoaxing All Of Mankind?" Really? You aren't a climate scientist, but you certainly are a socialist engaged in hoaxing all of mankind. Not sure what offense should be taken by "self-advertised blog." I was simply saying that there was a source for what I was about to say. That's a wrap. More fish to fry below.
Lol, the fact there were (a lot more than 7) previous ice ages disproves man-made global warming how? Exactly how do you think that's significant to the question of whether the current warming trend is man-made? This is your idea of a tough question?
You sure nailed those smarty-pants climatologists with that one......
True, the sun will become a red giant in about 500 million years, swallowing earth in the process, so who cares! Let's party!
Anyways, we can't control mother nature....
Why not put the money and time toward helping Madagascar transition from its over-exploitation of its resources to a sustainable model? A check to one of WildMadagascar.org's advertised organizations will do far more good than cap and trade. Help put pressure on GM Daewoo until they do the right thing. Send a solar cooker or make a contribution to one of the many organizations founded to help them in their plight. In other words, do something that will have an actual impact on the environment rather than buy into the AGW political movement.
thanks for the enlightening powerpoint, they've been known to win oscars, so i'll be rooting for ya!...
True, the term "mother nature" covers an extremely diffuse set of phenomena, some of which man can alter, and some of which man cannot, at least at the moment. That doesn't make what you said any less dumb.
The cynicism of this post is surpassed only by it's stupidity. The only way Al-Quaeda has been used by the politicians is that Bush/Cheney didn't go in and get Bin Laden when they had the chance, becuase OBL was much more useful alive. Bush/Cheney RISKED our lives, so that they could put up a boogeyman to justify all manner of civil rights abuses, sure. I'll agree with you there. That being said, Al-Quaeda is a threat. Within the war on terror, they remain one of, if not the biggest threat. And you're a fool if you believe otherwise. (I'm still not sure how Al-Q is being used to "rob" us however. You want some milk for your tea?)
As for CO2? There is not a single solitary piece of peer reviewed published slimate resaerch that refute AGW. Not one.
Your're wrong and so are your "scientists."
----------------------------------------------------------------
That's a matter of irrefutable fact.
Most scientists just don't have the ego that you lot do. Thay are ALL searching for knowledge, ALL aware that there's a lot they don't know, all aware that someone will eventually ammend (or contradict) their work and so all they can do is conclude what the data supports. Anti-AGW work is not thrown out because of "politics." That's utter nonsense. It's thrown out becuase it's crappy work; work that's not supported by research or evidence; and work that raises no questions that havene't been answered a thousand times over. It's thrown out because it's nothing but political hackery and corporate marketing masquerading as real science. That you can't accpet this says far more about you than it does about scientists or the peer review process.
----------------------------------------------------------
So DO YOUR HOMEWORK. And stop crying "liberal" every time your side fails becasue they didn't!
Who was it that said "A lie told often enough becomes truth?" I can't put my finger on it.
Your're wrong and so are your 'scientists.'"
Why do you guys keep saying this garbage when it is so easily refuted? "Not one?" See above to shatter your delusions.
You want to use Spenser, the "intelligent design" advocate as a source? Be my guest. His position on intelligent design just proves he's waaaayyyy out there in his understanding of science.
Does he have the degrees? Yes. But, if he's off on intelligent design, he can be off on his notions about climate change.
Are you an expert on the ice ages? What causes them? Do you know?
Ever hear of Milankovitch cycles? Look it up. Here's a link to help you on your way. Good luck in your journey.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
I know it is very difficult to question your cult. You are probably feeling all tingly with anger, like when you tell a creationist that evolution really did happen. It goes against your scripture. It is now in your Koolaiden core. Bad habits are hard to break but eventually you will come around. I can hear that little voice of doubt in your response. Why else would you scrawl that litany of preposterous questions/comments (I can almost see you tearing up a bit as you type, bellowing out a Wilsonesque "YOU LIE")?
"What is [the IPCC] then?"
The IPCC is almost exclusively a political entity rather than a scientific body. They are an extension of the UN whose aim is to impose a global tax on us that won't stop at energy transactions, but on all financial transactions. Go give Our Global Neighborhood a read if you want an idea of their ultimate goals.
"What does ANYONE stand to gain from this, if it's not true?"
Are you serious? Do you realize how big a trough we are talking about? Millions of pigs do and will continue to feed at it. To even ask that question makes me question whether or not you are already on the vast AGW payroll.
"Why pursue the agenda?"
Simplest of answers: money, power, and control.
"It would be completely irrational if this weren't as bad as they say."
What is completely irrational is to have put so much stock into a shallow theory that has not held up to what has thus far been very limited scientific scrutiny.
And you want to talk about showing biases? You probably missed the irony of providing those links to that particular BBC News report, the EDF, and RealClimate.
The BBC article was "Compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmidt." Fred Singer (you know, one of those scientists that you claim do not exist) surely advised on the skeptic side of the article, but do you know who Gavin Schmidt is? None other than a GISS climate modeler and James Hansen cabana boy!
The EDF is proof as to the ridiculous notion that you implied nobody will gain from this. They co-founded US-CAP!
And finally, RealClimate. That is the funniest of all. Let me see, who is on their contributor page? Hey, there he is again! Top billing goes to Gavin Schmidt. Next up? Of course, it's Michael Mann, inventor of the fraudulent AGW hockey stick that has altered world history (for the worse). Then we have Caspar Amman. Wonder if that's the same C.M. Amman who co-authored a publication with Mann (and Bradley and Briffa and Jones and Crowley et al)? And then there's the aforementioned Raymond S. Bradley, Mann's principal partner in crime and co-inventor of the ill-fated AGW hockey stick.
"You're not much of 'environmentalist' if you don't relaize that CO2 is probably the single biggest threat we face, based on what it does, how much of it we produce, and how long it lingers...With 'environmentalists' like you, who needs polluters?"
Doesn't this pretty much expose you for your naked bias and zealotry? It isn't possible for you to fathom that an environmentalist and naturalist such as myself did not buy into the AGW propagandist drone. I didn't need Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore to tell me to be a good steward of the Earth and its inhabitants. My family of three produces over a ton less garbage per year than the average American family. We are members of a number of environmental organizations and have been for a long time. We belong to a local farmer co-op. We compost, recycle, reuse, etc. Hell, I've been live-trapping houseflies for as long as I can remember to release them outside.
I have deep compassion for life and some of my favorite memories were derived from being immersed in nature. I am an environmentalist despite your protests. In fact, that is one of my primary gripes with all of this: the diversion of resources from real environmental issues and the potential damage to green causes when this AGW baloney goes belly up. CO2 is not "the single biggest threat we face." Not by a long shot.
You start out fine then immediately descend into complete paranoia.
Yes, the IPCC is heavily political - that's one of its weaknesses because it means, as a number of scientists involved in preparing the executive summary for the most recent IPCC report complained, politicians kept watering down the scientists' warnings! Several of the scientists actually walked out of the session in protest. The IPCC's political characteristic actually runs directly contrary to what you intended to prove by it.
It's unclear whether you mean the IPCC or the UN wants to impose a "global tax" on "energy transactions" and financial transactions, but I do notice that the former link goes to an op-ed by Ralph Nader and the latter to an article about a proposal by the Finance Minister of Germany to the G-20 meeting; I was unaware either of those folks were representatives of the UN or the IPCC, or that the G-20 was the same as either. I also couldn't help but notice that the idea for a tax on financial transactions has been kicking around for over 30 years and its main opponent is the financial industry. What were you saying earlier about follow the money?
And Our Global Neighborhood? Seriously? A 15-year-old report that was not done by an official UN agency and was prepared for a meeting that took place 11 years ago? Are you joking? No - you're just run-of-the-mill paranoid.
And several others asked to have their names removed from the IPCC report when the summaries for policy makers were officially released. What's your point?
Here's the money quote you seem to have missed in the Nader piece: "The IPCC has crunched the numbers and says this means a tax of about $50 levied on every metric ton of GHGs, or carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e to use their terminology)."
The G-20 example was used to show that the idea of a global tax (which you confess has been around a long time) is contemporary and the UN would be the collector of said taxes.
Do you really think it would be wise of me to follow the advice of a self-avowed socialist such as yourself in regards to the socialist bent of the UN/IPCC? Because of your own proclivities, you mock a reference to Our Global Neighborhood. I bet a majority of people never even heard of it over a decade later, so it is relevant.
It is pretty funny that you mock the notion of global governance through the UN/IPCC/ICJ (in collusion with international governments) that points to my "paranoia," yet ultimately that would be your own personal goal. Want another more contemporary example of the direction the U.S. has been trying to go? How about Obama's Global Poverty Act? Paranoid? Or awake? You couldn't achieve your socialist ends without again marginalizing dissent and disguising your true intentions. Old trick. And I pray it doesn't work.
Damn. There's that incapacity to understand plain English again. You really need to have that checked.
My point, which was abundantly clear, is that the political nature of the IPCC pushes it in the opposite direction you claim for it: It leads the group to downplay the scientists' warnings. Your own claim undermines your own argument.
Here's the money quote you missed
I missed nothing. The IPCC is charged with, among other things, estimating economic impacts of various mitigation strategies. It is simply false to claim it advocated any one of them. Nader cited the IPCC's conclusion in arguing that the method he supports - a carbon tax - would be more effective than cap-and-trade at a moderate cost.
the idea of a global tax ... is contemporary and the UN would be the collector of said taxes
Bzzzt! Your paranoia is showing again. The proposal - which may be "contemporary" but no one expects to get very far due to the opposition of monied interests - involves the individual nations taxing and collecting on the affected transactions that occur within their borders.
Do you really think it would be wise of me to follow the advice of a self-avowed socialist such as yourself
It'd do you better than following your own.
Because of your own proclivities, you mock a reference to Our Global Neighborhood.
I mocked it because it is an utterly silly argument.
I bet a majority of people never even heard of it over a decade later, so it is relevant.
Yeah, because the world has moved so far in that direction, hasn't it? Other than the establishment of the World Court in 1998 (which I take it you're against), is there a single item on that agenda which has gone anywhere? Not that I can find.
you mock the notion of global governance ... yet that would be your own personal goal
No, it wouldn't, you presumptuous bozo. I have never advocated world government. (Did you forget the "anarchist bent" of my self-description you quoted? Then there was the "civil liberties absolutist" part, too, but I have to remember your reading comprehension difficulties.)
How about Obama's Global Poverty Act? Paranoid? Or awake?
What a hoot! Thank you for this link! I encourage everyone to follow the link and read the whole bill (it's only one page). It's one of which Obama was the chief sponsor when he was in the Senate and what it would do is require the president "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty." This is some world government conspiracy? Wow!
Paranoid? Damn straight! And thank you for revealing it to all and sundry.
You couldn't achieve your socialist ends without marginalizing dissent and disguising your true intentions.
Yeah. Which I did by calling myself, as you noted, a "democratic socialist/green with an anarchist bent" on my "self-advertised" website. Quite a disguise.
Your type is so predictable: Poke you a few times and the black helicopters start flying around. Time to turn the grill off. You're done.
Yeah, mine was too. There were protests on both sides. In regards to your numerous statements scoffing the idea of a UN tax, you say things like "false to claim it advocated any one of [the mitigation strategies]" and "no one expects to get very far" and "some world government conspiracy?"
The world has gone in that direction. I know, it's all just my paranoia and black helicopters and such in your eyes, but what of this. Boutros called for this over a decade ago. And transnationalist Chu seemed to have preferred the Nader carbon tax.
And what would the Obama bill or its House counterpart H.R.1302 that you claim to be so innocuous have committed the U.S. to? How about near one trillion dollars of total aid by 2015. That's not global tax? Check out the sidebar here and do the math.
Thanks for reminding me about the "civil liberties absolutist" in you. How exactly does signing onto the AGW prescription work with your civil liberties absolutism? I would think these types of measures would be anathema to you. Seems pretty nanny-nanny to me. But your own self-description does prove you are a contradiction even to yourself.
I tire of this. I can still get some good fishing in before I'm ready for some football.
First off... I don't claim to hide my bias. It is with the side of science and always has been. "Very little scrutiny"? Puh-lease! Global Warming has been the single biggest science story going on well nigh twenty years now! The evidence SUPPORTING it keeps growing, every year, and there's few if any scientific theories or models that have recieved MORE scrutiny in that time!
You point out that my BBC article was advised by both a skeptic and a supporter. So? What's your point? That's it's balanced? Thanks for the compliment.
As for the other links, you offer nothing but ad hominen attacks. Do you have any actual SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIWED EVIDIDENCE to refute any of it? No. You don't. Becuase there ISN'T ANY.
As for the money involved... There's far more money to be made from burning fossil fuels. That's why we're still doing it. That's just common sense. If it was profitable to do otherwise, no company would need the UN (or anyoen else) to convince them, they'd just DO IT and MAKE MOPNEY. So this "follow the money" line of thought... well... we're on the same path, but you're walking in the wrong direction! If "they" want money from energy, they can just nationalize thier oil and gas companies, as many countries have already done. That's a lot easier than this grandiose global-tax conspiracy nonsense that your selling.
And you seriously won't kill bugs? Wow. I guess you're really committed. (Or should be.) Listen, I have news for you: ALL of your efforts, and those of a hypothetical million others doing the same thing, while admirable, won't accomplish dick if we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That's a matter of PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT. Why on earth would you do all that stuff, and yet NOT want a cleaner energy source, anyway?
--------------------------------------------------------------
BTW... What IS the 'single biggest threat' then? In your judgement? Seriously. I'm curious to know.
I simply point out that your believer is one of the rock stars of the AGW machine.
"Do you have any actual SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIWED EVIDIDENCE to refute any of it? No. You don't. Becuase there ISN'T ANY."
There you go again. It's been explained above and before.
"That's a lot easier than this grandiose global-tax conspiracy nonsense that your selling."
Of course it's nonsense. Conspiracy implies it is done in secret. Not the case here.
"And you seriously won't kill bugs? Wow. I guess you're really committed. (Or should be.) Listen, I have news for you: ALL of your efforts, and those of a hypothetical million others doing the same thing, while admirable, won't accomplish dick if we don't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That's a matter of PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT. Why on earth would you do all that stuff, and yet NOT want a cleaner energy source, anyway?"
I don't kill anything if I can avoid it. Why should I? A fly trapped in my house just wants to live and eat and make babies. If I can capture it in a cup and release it outside it is a win-win. I kill mosquitoes but they are biting or attempting to bite me (although admittedly with the same goals as a housefly).
I absolutely agree with your perceived need for alternative energy. You do not understand me at all if you think I like the status quo. But I also know reality. Solar and wind will not cut it. Do you know how much habitat would need to be destroyed to go solar?
That is why I choose the obvious answer: nuclear. There is no reason why in a country like ours we could not manage a nuclear network safely, efficiently, and yes, cleanly. That would put an end to all of this AGW nonsense once and for all but so-called environmentalists won't have it.
"BTW... What IS the 'single biggest threat' then? In your judgement? Seriously. I'm curious to know."
There is no "single biggest threat" that you apparently need. There is death by a thousand cuts. And the beauty is that most of the world's ills could be addressed over time. The current prescription of the AGW crowd is hemlock.
Perhaps you could investigate some of Hammer's contentions independently instead of living in Sheepville. I know it is easy for you to just la la la whatever the skeptics. You sit at the cool table in the cafeteria and people like me who actually dig deeply into the science (the Galileo nerd table) are scoffed at for drawing different conclusions than the clique "consensus."
The Inquisitors may be in power at the moment, but already your opinion is that of the minority despite having the luxury of a worldwide pro-AGW propaganda machine. The only plurality is among Dems where the AGW Kool Aid is still showing its strongest effects.
No need to apologize for not thinking. I have grown used to it here. Independent thought is a rare commodity on this homogeneous pasture. In this case, the grass IS greener on the other side. Best start your migration or you'll eventually go hungry with the rest of the stubborn.
You can look it up for yourself in the dictionary.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And yes, science DOES have a monoply on KNOWLEDGE. INTELLIGENT only decribes people that understand this.
This guy is not trained in climate science. He does not have the credentials to make the arguments that he's making and that's why he doesn't submit his blog post for peer-review, because his arguments don't hold water when examined in context!
Being 'involved' in climate science is not the same as having the requisite skills to evaluate and debunk climate scientists, which is what he tried to do.
Suggesting that he's the resource we should use and trust is ludicrous.
Is the Pentagon biased also?
Makes as much sense as what you wrote.
That's why, for the moment, the powers that be (the coal and industry), are causing stalling on Global Warming all around the world. OPEC is fighting against action on Global Warming, for obvious reasons. Same goes with China, where a powerful new business class stands to make enormous profits from coal powerplants. India is stalling and so is America. All around the world, powerful people stand to lose temendous amounts of money should fossil fuels be phased out. That is why it is the politically safe action to pay lip-service to GW warnings while doing nothing. All of this should be painfully obvious by the way, but I'm happy to spell it out in detail for those who don't immediately see it.....
But no, let's not focus on all that. Let's reach around for some nebulous reason scientist's warnings are motivated by self-interest.....
And finally do you think there aren't lucrative government contracts to be had in the fossil fuels industry? Like the exploratory drilling conservatives are cheering for like sports fans?
Climate is measured in decades or centuries or millennia.
George Will, who pretends to be an educated man on this subject, still doesn't understand this?
A decade, in terms of climate prediction, is short term.
No one on the Right does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science? Who needs science?!
Even some of the AGW crew is starting to sweat. You saw Latif's comments. The "consensus" at MMfA was that his words were misrepresented by the media. As I said in that comment thread, MMfA completely missed the mark with that story: "Latif (among others in the AGW clique), one of the world's most prominent climate modelers and an IPCC report author, admits there has been cooling (a concept scoffed at in previous 'cooling' stories by the MMfA AGW crowd), admits that the cooling will continue (ditto), admits that his decades-in-the-making models fail to account for major variables, and we are supposed to have faith in the alarmist ramblings of Latif and his Copenhacks?"
No climate scientist looked at any one decade in isolation.
That's the kind of stuff that your side does, dummy. It doesn't mean that the rest of us are so ignorant as to fall into that same trap! LOL
You uttered, "A decade, in terms of climate prediction, is short term."
My response was to your nonsense.
George Will says that a trend lasting a decade can't be short term in terms of climate. It sure can, and is.
No one is saying that the hottest decade ever should be looked at in isolation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was the hottest decade on record!
Your 'response' was not to what I said, not did it keep what I said in context. Man, you are a lost cause. You just keep on digging your own grave!
What exactly are his credentials on this very complex subject?
First Amendment! We don't need no stinkin' First Amendment!
Nice job of bearding the lion.
Teach the controversy!!!
And in that ridiculous comment you also suggested that this is a first amendment issue - what a total imbecile you apparently are. The first amendment keeps the government from shutting down free speech. It doesn't stop us from saying he's a tool of the AGW deniers and it doesn't stop the Washington Post from determining that he's embarassed himself and the newspaper one time too many over with his columns on AGW and so they might stop him from publishing any more columns on the topic!
But you don't even know this about the First Amendment, and you want us to trust you on AGW? One small part of the US Constitution baffles you and you demand credibility on AGW? My god, man, get a clue!
We thought you were more informed than this. Or is it that you are lying? Which is it?
Just go to the NOAA web site to see what they say about this. You may just find that there IS overwhelming evidence of global warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
So could it be that you are just ignorant? You, the great "thinker" of this age? Come on. You should know better than that, right?
Or, are you just another paid hack for the coal and petroleum industry?
Or, are you just lying?
Which is it George, poor George?
Global temperatures have been declining since 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah/from:2003/plot/rss/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend
US temperatures in 2008 were below the average of the last 115 years according to the National Climate Data Center
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/dec/01_12_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif
Polar ice extent is largely unchanged since 1979 when measurement began, NASA, National Snow and Ice Data Center
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-nasateam-algorithm.jpg
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-bootstrap-algorithm1.jpg
The Arctic can melt entirely (well there is 24% more ice than two years ago this September), and the seas can't rise. It is floating ice.90% of the land ice is in antarctica and the ice has been growing for 30 years
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/south-ice-anomaly1.jpg
Global sea temperatures have also been falling according to Argo, they have over 3,000 floats in the oceans
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Argo_Heat_Content.jpg
Hurricane and cyclone storm count and intensity it is at an all time low according to the experts, Florida State University
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/GLOBAL_TC_24MONTH_FREQUENCY.jpg
Polar Bear population today is at or near a record high, five times more than the 1950s.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQ3NzcyYTdkYmM4NjBjOTRkMDVlYzQ4OGU3OGFmNTU=
that's the official data. Where is the warming?