Comments on: Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’

By: Felipe Tamez

Felipe Tamez — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:14:52 +0000

Felipe Tamez

thanks to help us to think in other directions.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:19:48 +0000

The planet is warming. Ok, got that. 1 degree farenheit in the last 120 years of measurement. 30 years ago the cover of Time magazine was “Coming Ice Age” because man was polluting the atmosphere. That crap didn’t hold water so they shifted to the “global warming” bandwagon. Does anyone have a clue what the data means? According to the scientific community the Earth has been on a warming trend since the last Ice Age. What caused that? During the last ice age the ocean depths were 300 ft. less than they are today. In 1985 when my daughter was born I went into a funk because according to leading scientists the oceans were going to raise 2 -3 ft by 2005. Beach looks the same to me today. The dynamics of “global warming” are too complicated to pull a guess out of your ass and impose your views on me. As for computer models……I can get whatever results I want by the input that’s given. How many local weather “computer models” are worth a damn. CO2 output by man is miniscule to what is produced by Mother Nature. Rotting vegetation, volcanoes and other things. Can anyone explain why Mastodons were flash frozen in Siberia and Alaska with grasses in their stomachs? That was one hell of a rapid climate change and as far as I know they weren’t driving Chevy’s. Maybe if they had the CO2 would have prevented it. You never know. Wow, maybe we have saved the Earth from the ice age doom of the 70’s by driving SUV’s and cooking the world with greenhouse gases.
Am I for a cleaner planet? Do I value endangered species? Do I want my great grandchildren to live in a better world than this? Yes yes and yes. Panic,hype and hysteria isn’t going to get the job done. Neither is Al Gore. Humans aren’t really as important as we’d like to think. Did anyone factor in solar activity, orbital position and just plain old glitches and trends of nature? I realize also that you all have guilt for having the big house, the new car and all the comforts society has to give but think…. maybe it’s not a bad thing. I guess it’s a ” left wing burden”. Anyway, in closing my maple trees in front of my house thanked me for buying a Corvette.

By: Win Shea

Win Shea — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:59:15 +0000

Smoking out Michaels’ misleding quote of Davis’ study on the Antarctic ice sheet is a good service. But Steort’s article is chock full of mathematical data & arguments, especially on the Greenland ice sheet, and badly needs a rebuttal by someone who is able & willing to do the math. Does anyone know of a rebuttal that does this?

By: US ranks low in addressing climate change « Later On

US ranks low in addressing climate change « Later On — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:30:04 +0000

[...] Some right-wing groups have used a study by Curt Davis to claim Antarctica is gaining ice. But Davisâ€™ study only looked at the interior of the continent. Since global warming leads to more precipitation, increased snow on the interior of Antarctica is consistent with climate change. In June, Davis told ThinkProgress that using his study to claim Antarctica is gaining ice is â€œcompletely wrong.â€ [...]

By: Think Progress » Inhofe Attacks Children’s Book on Global Warming

Think Progress » Inhofe Attacks Children’s Book on Global Warming — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:50:24 +0000

[...] Some right-wing groups have used a study by Curt Davis to claim Antarctica is gaining ice. But Davis’ study only looked at the interior of the continent. Since global warming leads to more precipitation, increased snow on the interior of Antarctica is consistent with climate change. In June, Davis told ThinkProgress that using his study to claim Antarctica is gaining ice is “completely wrong.” [...]

By: A Moderate from South Dakota » No Suprise Here

A Moderate from South Dakota » No Suprise Here — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:36:33 +0000

[...] â€“ This year, Michaels completely misrepresented a study by Curt Davis to falsely claim that Antarctica has been gaining ice in recent years. [...]

By: Think Progress » LEAKED MEMO: Coal Industry Coordinating Propaganda Blitz Attacking Global Warming Science

Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:45:22 +0000

[...] – This year, Michaels completely misrepresented a study by Curt Davis to falsely claim that Antartica has been gaining ice in recent years. [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:23:17 +0000

Hi Paul;

I liked your metaphor about the house warming – if it warms you don’t blame CO2, you go and turn down the thermostat (the sun) – nice image but a more accurate metaphor would be your house is getting warmer, you have no control over the thermostat, and someone is closing all the windows.

I’m at a bit of a loss as to how carbonation is relevant to the discussion – but you may want to get in a bit more soda as your house heats up.

By: Think Progress » The Climate Skeptic Playbook

Think Progress » The Climate Skeptic Playbook — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:24:33 +0000

[...] Jason Steort’s “clarification” of his misleading National Review cover story is accompanied by a letter-to-the-editor by Pat Michaels. Mr. Michaels is the one who told Steorts that 2002 was a â€œhigh-water mark for Antarctic iceâ€ based on a grossly inaccurate interpretation of a study by Curt Davis. [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:18:39 +0000

You guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling…
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2… Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen… The circle of life, nature always provides a balance… Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2… Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more… So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath… Sorry couldn’t resist… It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it…

The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so… i.e…. Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home… Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages… Hmmmm… Sounds logical to me… Hotter sun = Warmer Earth…

That makes as much sense as a “scientist” telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants… Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for “science” to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system…

That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output… Unless all that shade led to global cooling…

PS CO2 is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath…

By: Think Progress » Steorts Issues ‘Clarification’ On Misleading Global Warming Article, Makes Another Error

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:09:15 +0000

[...] ThinkProgress has documented several critical errors in the National Review’s June 5 cover story on global warming, “Scare of the Century.” [...]

By: jason brown

jason brown — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:10:30 +0000

Tut, tut, tsk, tsk. All this high emotion – don’t any of you boys (no girls seem silly enough to even go anywhere near here) remember advice your mother gave you? You know, the one where she says, “Better safe, than sorry.” By the way, I think the second paragraph has an ‘is’ that should be an ‘it’ – not that I want to get into any arguments about what is is!

By: paul

paul — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:19:28 +0000

Earth’s history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Note the extreme fluctuations between temp…repetitive as a solar clock, but then external factors are an ‘inconvienient truth’.

A data stream of hundreds of thousands years…and the only one we get is a 150 year span, which would serve as little more than a dot on the graph of waht we actually know. Scares the little kids in school.

By: paul

paul — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:58:06 +0000

Note the title of the article:

Ancient Climate Studies SUGGEST…

Proof? No way.

Theory? Absolutely.

By: pat neuman

pat neuman — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:51:37 +0000

Hey Paul,

How far back beyond 150 years do you want to go? For instance…

… “Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth’s past, according to an expert on ancient climates.” …

… This abrupt shift in the Earth’s climate took place 55 million years ago at the end of the Paleocene epoch as the result of a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of two greenhouse gases: methane and carbon dioxide. …

‘… “The emissions that caused this past episode of global warming probably lasted 10,000 years. By burning fossil fuels, we are likely to emit the same amount over the next three centuries,” said James Zachos, professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.” …’

‘ … “Records of past climate change show that change starts slowly and
then accelerates,” he said. “The system crosses some kind of
threshold.” …’

Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
Santa Cruz CA (SPX) Feb 16, 2006
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html

By: paul

paul — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:48:57 +0000

My math was poor on the dow Jones comparison.

I’ll do it openly-

150 years/4500000000years=1/30 million.

250 trading days/year….250/30 million=.0000083,

1/.0000083=120482.

120482/250 days= 481 years.

Now please correct my previous comparison to state:

“Using 150 years of temperature data is like extrapolating 481 years of data on the effect of the DJ, based on one day of trading.”

Now if you became a creationist, with the earth being only 5000 years old, your data would be a lot better.

By: paul

paul — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:16:06 +0000

Pat-

This is a very funny site-I have been referred ther more than once.

Some good stuff, from people who seem to have done too much ’specialization’. They are incapable of leaving their field of expertise to incorporate much larger ideals. Very scared of looking at the change in earth temperature beyond their 150 years.

Bottom line-the earth has experienced a significant amount of temp fluctuation, beyond what we are seeing today. Climate change on a grand scale? Yep. Events in a much larger system are occurring and the site you have chosen champions discussion of only their 150 year graph from only the aspect of man’s sins.

This is the equivalent of taking the change in the Dow Jones for one day, and extrapolating the effects of 7 years of the market. The statistical set that proponents are offering is irrelevant.

The crux of the article’s argument presented is that Mars can experience temp changes by outside factors.

I concur.

By: soren kierkegaard

soren kierkegaard — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:00:08 +0000

It is a very strange predicament:

The right is characterized as having made a leap of faith regarding the existance of god, for which the left ridicules them.

And now, with global warming, the left is being ridiculed for its leap of faith into the unknown by the right.

And people thought they could rid themselves of relgion. Zealots all.

By: pat neuman

pat neuman — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:50:21 +0000

Hey Paul,

Check this out:

Global warming on Mars?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/

and, more recently, this:

… both hemispheres have experienced enhanced tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 15 to 45Â° latitude belt, which is a pattern indicative of a widening of the tropical circulation and a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet streams and their associated subtropical dry zones. This distinctive spatial pattern in the trends appears to be a robust feature of this 27-year record. …
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5777/1179

By: paul

paul — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:21:37 +0000

A brain teaser:

Mars is experiencing global warming.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

The earth is experiencing global warming.

Explain the the warming of two different planets, circling the same sun based upon two different theories. Remember, to maintain good global warming ethics, you must come up with seperate reasons independent of solar radiation-as the earth’s global warming must be completely attributable to man, and Mar’s global warming must be independant of man(but I will allow for Martians).