WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people”

Posted on  

"WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people”"

UPDATE:  Watts edited out all the offending language cited below.  I’m hoping in the future people can mostly stick to criticizing what I post myself and not on what commenters here write.  I am always happy to be notified about inappropriate comments, which I will work to deal with in a timely fashion.  Failure to do so immediately, however, does not constitute endorsement.

Let me state this for the record:

Full-time global warming disinformers, like Swift boat smearer Marc Morano and Anthony Watts, have dedicated their lives to promoting disinformation and delay whose inevitable outcome — if a large fraction of people continue to be suckered by them — is unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people.  Even so, Climate Progress has never advocated or threatened violence against them.  Climate Progress does not tolerate any such threats in its comments.  I don’t even tolerate comments that can be misinterpreted as threatening violence, when in fact they only predicted it.

That said, Watts through his website is shouting “no fire” on a burning planet. That is perhaps the most immoral thing any human being can do. Indeed, his website and writing goes beyond that. He, like Morano, is actually shouting “The firemen are liars and are trying to hurt you.” Shame on him.  Rational people have every right to be very angry with such disinformers.

The anti-science conservatives are on the rampage.

My Friday post — Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat — generated a staggering number of comments from WUWT devotees and responses by CP readers.  I don’t work Friday nights and I have to deal with 2-year-old, so I didn’t get around to reading all of the comments until Saturday, by which time all hell had seemingly broken loose.

One of my commenters had written something that was both inappropriate and easily misrepresented by anti-science conservatives as a threat.  Before I discuss that comment, let me note that in the comments section of that post (here), WUWT’s Anthony Watts advances a remarkable policy for comments (one that I and most blogs don’t share) — namely that the blog author agrees with any comment left up for more than a few hours:

Since it has been up for several hours now, it would seem that you agree then.

Like I said, I didn’t read them until Saturday, and I’ve dealt with the ones I’ve seen.

But let me note that it took me about one minute to find the following comments on WUWT, which Watts must agree with 100% since they have been up for several days.  In his June 4 post, “George Will: The Green Bubble Has Burst,” Watts has allowed the following comments by Adolfo Giurfa to stand since Tuesday (!) — bold-face added:

Adolfo Giurfa (13:02:22) :

Dave Middleton:
Modern prosperity is largely based on our ability to generate more and more wealth per unit of energy used. Making energy more expensive will just make us less prosperous.
“¦and promoting feverishly and fanatically using less energy it is plainly CRIMINAL, it is equivalent of murdering people. What is really surprising it is that “human rights” NGO’s say NOTHING about it, and it is so because their patrons and/or founders allucinate a world only inhabited only by themselves. Can you imagine a world full to the top of morons?

That’s right. If you merely advocate putting a price on global warming pollution equal to the harm it causes you are a criminal, no different than a murderer.  Using the same logic as Morano and Watts do in “interpreting” the comment on my blog, this is at least an implicit threat to round us up and imprison us, if not do violence against us, since most conservatives I’ve met support the death penalty.

Since Watts hasn’t taken it down or edited it or denounced it, I’m assuming that he is in 100% agreement with it.  Here’s another:

Adolfo Giurfa (13:18:54) :

mr.artday (21:04:58) :

The world’s human population has exploded in my lifetime
There is a simple method to avoid that”¦Give to others the example!, begin with yourself, wipe yourself out of this world, then there will be ONE less inhabitant in this supposedly overcrowded earth :-)

(Recent studies say that all human population could live and prosper in an area such as the state of Texas, without any problem).

And so I guess Watts endorses one of his readers calling for another reader to kill himself.  [And no, the smiley face on the end doesn’t diminish how inappropriate this comment is.  Quite the reverse.  What kind of a person tells another to kill themselves and then puts a smiley face on it?  What person allows such a comment to stay up for days, thereby tacitly endorsing it?]

And yes, humorless deniers, I am just trying to make a point here.

I do not endorse all the comments on my blog.  I do try to read them, but sometimes when I get flooded with comments, especially overnight — I don’t see them all until the next day, and sometimes I miss a few.

One of my commenters, Creative Greenius, wrote a comment that predicted the next generation would be so angry at the deniers like Anthony Watts that they would commit a violent act.  I have dealt with those comments because they were inappropriate and easily misinterpreted.  He is now on permanent moderation.

I have spoken to the author and understand that he is himself a nonviolent person who was making a prediction and went too far.

I’m not going to repeat the comment.  You can find it as a banner headline at the Swift boat smearer Marc Morano‘s ClimateDepot, if can stomach comically unadulterated disinformation.

Morano is well known for smearing people like John Kerry and utterly misstating what real scientists say — see Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Morano, CO2 “” but not the sun “” “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850.

[Weirdly, Morano posts a link to an earlier CP column with the headline borrowed from a quote of mine:  “Joe Romm:  You really can’t tell whether the whole damn website — Climate Depot — is just some sort of elaborate performance art.”  Well, now we know Climate Depot is nothing more than some sort of elaborate performance art, since what is the defining characteristic of performance art than a self-referential comment on its role as performance art?  I rest my case.]

So it Is it no surprise that Morano’s headline, which includes these words, “Romm’s Climate Progress features threat to skeptics!” and the opening sentence, “A comment on Joe Romm’s Climate Progress blog threatens physical harm to those skeptical of man-made climate fears” are utterly false.  As I said, the comment was actually predicting or warning deniers about possible future harm.

Nonetheless, the comment has been dealt with.  Rather then deleting it entirely I have chosen to edit it to reflect what the author was trying to say, as the TOS allows.

UPDATE:  Swift boat smearer Marc Morano is now running as a banner headline a misquote from my statement below:  “Climate Depot’s ‘disinformation’ to be responsible for ‘unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people!’ — Declares former Clinton official Romm.”  But forget the misquote — it seems just plain weird that Morano is headlining this in the first place.  Is he trying to puff up his role to impress his funders that someone is paying attention to his poorly trafficked website at all?  Indeed, he seems equally proud of my ridiculing his website as “performance art.”  Alternative explanations welcome!

Anyway, I am mostly responding here because the blogosphere lives on forever and because of the staggering hypocrisy of Watts, who allows the harshest comments to remain on his website for days.  But we don’t have to make any connection between comments and Watts’ beliefs to see that he embraces the most extreme anti-scientific view, like this:

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

Indeed, Watts reprinted an absurd essay containing that statement with the headline and intro:

Shocker: Huffington Post carries climate realist essay

Congratulations to Harold Ambler, who frequents here in comments, for breaking the climate “glass ceiling” at HuffPo. This essay is something I thought I’d never see there. Next stop: Daily Kos? – Anthony

Yes, calling human-caused global warming the “biggest water ever sold to the public in the history of humankind” is a “climate realist” position.

Such a statement is anti-scientific and anti-science in the most extreme sense. It accuses the scientific community broadly defined of deliberate fraud - and not just the community of climate scientists, but the leading National Academies of Science around the world (including ours) and the American Geophysical Union, an organization of geophysicists that consists of more than 45,000 members and the American Meteorological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (see “Yet more scientists call for deep GHG cuts“).

Such a statement accuses all of the member governments of the IPCC, including ours, of participating in that fraud, since they all sign off on the Assessment Reports word for word (see “Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly“). And, of course, this statement endorsed by Watts accuses all of the leading scientific journals of being in on this fraud, since the IPCC reports are primarily a review and synthesis of the published scientific literature.

I repeat that full-time global warming disinformers, like Swift boat smearer Marc Morano and Anthony Watts, have dedicated their lives to promoting disinformation and delay whose inevitable outcome — if a large fraction of people continue to be suckered by them — is unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people.  Their websites are the equivalent of shouting “no fire” on a burning planet. That is perhaps the most immoral thing any human being can do. Indeed, their websites and writing goes beyond that.  They are are actually shouting “The firemen are liars and are trying to hurt you. Fire them.” Shame on him.  Rational people have every right to be very angry with such disinformers.

« »

231 Responses to WattsUpWithThat labels people who advocate putting a price on global warming pollution as “criminal,” the same as “murdering people”

  1. hunter says:

    Just balancing things a bit.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/
    What is good for the true believer is good for the skeptic.

  2. dhogaza says:

    What is good for the true believer is good for the skeptic.

    Which is the point of Joe’s post, in vice-versa form …

  3. Dano says:

    All these people can do is gin up sh– to have play.

    They can’t fall back on testable hypotheses, empirical evidence, the scientific literature, equations, model output, scribbles on a napkin to argue their point. They have nothing except umbrage and comment spam.

    They have been left behind by society and are bitter – bitter with the audacity of dopes.

    Best,

    D

  4. Gail says:

    The bitterz and the audacity of dopes in one sentence! I’m humbled.

  5. Michael D Smith says:

    No one disagrees with the fact that the world has warmed since the LIA. The issue is that there is still no evidence that any of it has been caused by increasing CO2 levels. A very small amount of the increase should be attributable to CO2, but it is not measurable. Given most of the newest measurements of actual feedback in the climate system, the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 0.4 to 0.5C, so about 0.23 degrees of the increase experienced so far should be from CO2. Once the models are fixed to use the lower sensitivity, their projections might become at least somewhat believable. The alarming projections are currently bandied about are just wrong. If the models were corrected, there is no need for cap & tax, and no good tax & spend liberal wants that to happen.

  6. paulm says:

    Er Michael, there are quite a few who do disagree, for some idiotic reason.

  7. Ian Forrester says:

    Michael D Smith said: “The alarming projections are (sic) currently bandied about are just wrong”. Of course, you have evidence for this? Must have been in a paper that all real climate scientists overlooked. Maybe it was in E&E.

    In any case, please enlighten us with the source of your wonderful news.

  8. dhogaza says:

    Michael D. Smith: warm thanks for demonstrating Dano’s point so well, and so quickly, too!

  9. Brewster says:

    Micheal, you say there is “no evidence” that warming is caused by increasing CO2.

    Take a good look at this graph:
    http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

    If you are going to claim that something else caused the rise in temp, whatever you pick better match at least as well as that CO2 curve.

    If TWO things match that curve, that would be an AMAZING coincidence.

    But I really believe your last sentence is the core of your objections.

    But could I restate it, as a card carrying Conservative?

    The worst scenario I can imagine is the world going to H*ll in a Handbasket, causing the government to step in and run everything.

    This is precisely where the Climate Deniers are leading us.

    Would you agree?

  10. Spaceman Spiff says:

    Even *if* Michael D. Smith’s claim had any scientific merit (and he doesn’t provide any evidence that it does), at what atmospheric content of CO2 (and methane, etc) should we begin to worry? The CO2 content is 386 ppmv and rising at 2 ppmv per year (and the rate of increasing is increasing with time). Over the past 600,000 years the maxima in CO2 content peaked between 260 and 300 ppmv (see for example, here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png) ). And this recent sudden rise…hmmm….I don’t know…it somehow looks different than what has occurred in the past ~200 years.

  11. MarkB says:

    A lot of slander is getting thrown Joe’s way. Here’s a difference between objective science-minded folks and agenda-driven contrarians. Science-minded folks actually use logic, facts, and reliable sources to back up their claims. Even when a phrase like “breath-taking ignorance” is leveled at a blog, it is most certainly backed up with facts. Contrarians simply make things up, cherry-pick pieces of information (the way a lawyer would), dodge direct debate, and create strawmen arguments – in this case the claim that this blog endorses every blog comment made.

  12. MarkB says:

    Michael Smith writes:

    “Given most of the newest measurements of actual feedback in the climate system, the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 0.4 to 0.5C, so about 0.23 degrees of the increase experienced so far should be from CO2. ”

    Incorrect. Hanen’s original 1988 model actually used a climate sensitivity of more than 4 C, and it’s been pretty accurate within given error bars and known forcings. This doesn’t mean 4 C is accurate (still too early to tell), but your claims have already been falsified from real-world observations. I think Lindzen is the only scientist with any credentials who still hangs on to this pet hypothesis. His colleague Spencer is also trying to find a lower CS.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    Realistic climate senstivity estimates currently average around 3 C, based on both direct reliable observations (i.e. water vapor feedback) and extensive paleoclimatic studies. There’s a fair amount of wiggle room. Anything less than 1.5 C is very unlikely. The upper bound is somewhat harder to pin down.

  13. MarkB says:

    “If the models were corrected, there is no need for cap & tax, and no good tax & spend liberal wants that to happen.”

    Translation: “If the models were irrationally modified to support my anti-‘liberal’ political agenda…”

  14. MarkB says:

    “Perhaps CP readers with strong stomachs can go through the comments section on Watts’ blog and identify other things that he agrees with.”

    It indeed takes a strong stomach to observe such cult-like behavior for more than a few minutes. For a treasure chest of zealous comments, google “wattsupwiththat” and “hansen”. It will direct you to any number of obsessive smear posts from Watts.

    So I present to you a few other statements Watts clearly endorses. The irony is this might not be far from the truth…

    —–

    “CO2 is simply the latest mechanism to seize power and subjugate the masses.”

    —–

    “he’s been spouting lies about a fictional global warming that doesn’t exist….But, I do wonder who will challenge this delusional idiot by suing him for libel or at least call his sanity into question.”

    —–

    “Is there no way he can be retired due to old age? Or suffering from delusion grandeur? Or dementia? The trouble is that, like all dictators, he’s afraid that once he’s gone and the keys to the cupboard are passed on, his minions may not be scared to reveal the truth anymore and all the skeletons may be revealed. He doesn’t morph into Robert Mugabe at night, does he?”

    —–

    “The Al Gore, AGW crowd has become the equvalent of late 1700’s England crowd. Taxation without “Justifcation”.
    Our Liberial enforced (Dumb down education system) has put the fate of this Country in the hands of a bunch of totally “Uninformed/Misinformed” voters.
    “Minutemen” unite, and save this Great Country from the Liberial “Socialistic” forces within, that are now bent on destroying this great Country.
    God/Science Save Us all!!!

    “Give Me Liberty of Give me Death. Our Freedom of Speech and Socialistic Education system has Failed Us.

  15. parallel says:

    I wonder why you find it difficult to understand what was written on wattsupwiththat.com – that reducing energy production in poor 3rd world countries does lead to staggering loss of life. It’s not even an original thought or comment.

    Reading Watt’s blog I see that you refused to post his comments even when they are innocuous and make a good scientific point.

    I wonder why the AGW support blogs find it so tough to allow dissent, but tend to answer the difficult points with ad hominems. Isn’t that the way science is meant to be advanced?

    From the record, it seems my comment is likely to be be deleted.

  16. MarkB says:

    Parallel writes:

    “From the record, it seems my comment is likely to be be deleted.”

    This isn’t the only false assumption you made in your post.

    Don’t you find it unsettling that Watts is clearly building a strawman bordering on slander by claiming that Dr. Romm endorses every potentially extreme comment made on his blog? If I was a supporter of Watts, I would question why he’s doing that.

  17. PaulK says:

    Contrarians simply make things up, cherry-pick pieces of information (the way a lawyer would), dodge direct debate, and create strawmen arguments – in this case the claim that this blog endorses every blog comment made.

    My friend used to say, “Well, if you’re going to use facts and proof, there’s no point in even talking to you.”

    I believe contrarians are eager to debate, particularly Pielke who may do so soon with a professor from Stanford.

  18. Pilot says:

    I’m not sure that these comments attributed to Watts are actually by him. He tends to limit himself to pointing out things like increasing temperatures measured by weather stations located next to air conditioning units cannot be relied upon. Or that there has been no disappearance of the arctic ice as predicted. Or that none of the models used by the IPCC have come even close to matching present trends. Or that the predicted CO2 signature hotspot cannot be found (using thermometers). Or that sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. Or that the UK Met Office has an appalling record of predicting the UK seasonal climate ( but an excellent record in promoting AGW ).

    Watts would have nowhere to go if the evidence proved him wrong. It should be easy to shut him up. So do it. Show him the money!

  19. MarkB says:

    “Watts would have nowhere to go if the evidence proved him wrong. It should be easy to shut him up. ”

    He always has the blogosphere, a place where any number of scientifically unsupported comments can be made to a like-minded audience…er wait. He’s already there. If he can get himself into one of any number of reputable peer-reviewed journals (not hard to do if you actually have a scientifically valid argument, and in a few cases when you don’t), more power to him. That’s the way you convince scientists. Convincing the public just requires a clever message – i.e. the erroneous idea that photos of weather stations influences the trend in the global temperature analysis.

  20. Dano says:

    hat reducing energy production in poor 3rd world countries does lead to staggering loss of life. It’s not even an original thought or comment.

    So what.

    Tell us what man-made climate change will do instead of sticking your head in the sand.

    That is: why do scared conservative white male ideologues hate the poor?

    Best,

    D

  21. Dano says:

    My previous comment was a little harsh for the filter:

    The alarming projections are currently bandied about are just wrong.

    WOOOOOW!

    Hey everybody! Michael Smith has been to th’ fyoocher!

    Say, Mike! Buddy! Handsome devil! Since you’ve been to the fyoocher, can you tell me, pal, buddy, what next week’s winning Lotto numbers are?

    Best,

    D

  22. dhogaza says:

    He tends to limit himself to pointing out things like increasing temperatures measured by weather stations located next to air conditioning units cannot be relied upon.

    Remember, Watts needs to show a couple of things.

    1. Photo documentation correlates with measurable changes in *trend* reported by each station. This requires *measurements* and *analysis*, which he has not done.

    2. That such corruption of local station trends is such that it breaks the GISS algorithms designed explicitly to tease out a robust signal from the known-to-be-imperfect individual station trend data. This requires even more *analysis*, which Watts has not done. When the Watts admirer named JohnV did an independent test using Watts classification data and came up with virtually the same result as GISS using only Watts’ “good” stations, Watts rejected that analysis because it doesn’t fit his hypothesis. *real* science requires you to either reject the hypothesis or show why the analysis is wrong.

    3. Prove that these errors bias the historical record towards warming, not cooling, if you’re going to “prove” that these problems show that there is no warming, only instrumentation error.

    4. Explain away the satellite data which also shows warming.

    5. Explain away reams of data on trends in the natural world which all point to warming.

    Watts has done nothing of the kind. He’s produced a fine arts vanity book full of mostly low-quality photos, with a conclusion backed up with no analysis.

  23. MarkB says:

    Countries that rely heavily on fossil fuel production, among many things, are…

    “Countries that produce oil tend to be poorer and less productive
    economically than they should be, given their supposed
    blessings. This has been well documented over the last
    decade. Further research has confirmed that oil exportdependent
    states tend to suffer from unusually high rates of
    corruption, authoritarian government, government ineffectiveness,
    military spending, and civil war.2″

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/priceofoil/drilling_execsum.pdf

  24. dhogaza says:

    Watts would have nowhere to go if the evidence proved him wrong.

    Easy to refute:

    1. Watts is wrong

    2. He’s still here

    3. World is still not flat

    (thought I’d make this an all-inclusive bubble-burster for you)

  25. john says:

    When faced with the kind of lunacy found in WUWT, I can’t help but think of two lines from Yeat’s “Slouching Towards Bethlehem.”

    The first is:

    The best lack all conviction, While the worst
    Are filled with passionate intensity ..

    The second is:

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.

    The rough beast is the fruit of denial — a world made deadly to many people. Is that not a crime?

    I wish we didn’t have to pay any attention to people like Watts — he is obviously on the lunatic fringe. But we do. Because we’ve come to the point in time when the Watts of the world can cause irrevocable damage by causing even small delays. They throw the red meat of confusion and discord before the passionately ignorant with no thought for truth or consequences.

    Meanwhile, the best work compromises, lacking the conviction to take stands that must be made.

  26. hapa says:

    rearguard action.

  27. PaulK says:

    dhogaza,

    Sometime in the time of your mountain serenity, it must have occurred to you even briefly that given the indistinct parameters of geometry, time and space, the world indeed is in many ways flat.

  28. I have the utmost respect for Joe Romm and the work he does. I read his blog regularly and I purchased, read and enjoyed “Hell and High Water” in hardback.
    I consider him an honest broker and an ethical and fair climate change expert who speaks the truth.

    I am sorry that he felt the need to edit my comments but that is his inarguable right and privilege as the author of this blog where I am only an uninvited visitor offering my unsolicited opinions. I have no quarrel with the actions he’s taken. I accept my permanent moderation status just as I have accepted being on double secret probation since 1975.

    I don’t think you don’t need to be Faith Popcorn to accurately forecast the unpleasant response coming for the people who Joe Romm correctly says do “perhaps the most immoral thing any human being can do.”

    And I don’t believe it’s foolish at all to predict less than a happy ending for the very people about whom Joe Romm correctly says “have dedicated their lives to promoting disinformation and delay whose inevitable outcome — if a large fraction of people continue to be suckered by them — is unspeakable misery and/or violence to billions of people.”

    I dare say the billions of victims inflicted with this misery and/or violence will not go gentle into that good night but will instead rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    They would be foolish to do otherwise.

  29. Jeff Green says:

    Because laws are made by consensus, extreme irrationality of enough people distorts the process. Reaching consensus we are in the congress. Hopefully the process can be cleaned up enough to get the real work done in reducing GHG emissions.

  30. dhogaza says:

    Sometime in the time of your mountain serenity, it must have occurred to you even briefly that given the indistinct parameters of geometry, time and space, the world indeed is in many ways flat.

    I tried to get this guy to take a few steps forward and test that hypothesis, but for some reason he refused.

  31. RoyFOMR says:

    Never, since the stranglehold imposed by a religious dogmatism that denied freedom of speech and thought was allegedly consigned to the vaults of history, has the charge of heresy and threat of punishment been more apparent than it is in the year of our lord 2009.

    Shame on those who attack earnest dissent by calling for an extinguishment of alternative belief without debate by claiming that censorship for ‘the greater good’ is an inalienable right!

    Shame. Disagreement is the greatest opportunity for advancement that we have. Consensus maintains a status quo that few may be happy with.

    Joe, do you like the status quo?

    [JR: Well, the status quo can be maintained if powerful existing interests that like the status quo in energy and climate, say, fossil fuel companies, fund disinformers like, say Marc Morano’s, to spread confusion and preach do-nothingism.]

  32. Dano says:

    Shorter RoyFOMR:

    Teach the controversy! Them durn ol’ facts’ll line up wit our beliefs soon enuf!

    snork

    Are denialists really some sort of comedian, trying out a new schtick?

    Best,

    D

  33. Monkey boy says:

    It may be hard to concieve but at Watts-up-with-that people are allowed to state their opinions whether pro or anti AGW. Letting someone express their view on his blog does not mean he supports such an opinion.

    [JR: You aren’t one for reading the posts you comment on, are you, or you’d realize you’ve missed the entire point of what this post is about? It is Watts who asserted he advanced the policy that a blog author supports every single statement he permits to stay on his blog.]

  34. Ian Forrester says:

    RoyFOMR so you think it is all right for deniers to be completely dishonest in their attacks on the science behind AGW? I don’t know how much you know and understand about science but honesty is one of the key characteristics required by a scientist. Telling lies is anathema to science and that is all the deniers have at present.

    They cannot produce one paper which refutes the science only lies, disinformation and obfuscation.

  35. RoyFOMR says:

    Dano,
    I barely speak English, my mother tongue, re-phrase please – I’d love to understand what you just said!

  36. dhogaza says:

    It may be hard to concieve but at Watts-up-with-that people are allowed to state their opinions whether pro or anti AGW. Letting someone express their view on his blog does not mean he supports such an opinion.

    Well, gee then, Monkey Boy, you’d think Watts would be smart enough to understand that a post here that Joe HADN’T EVEN READ YET doesn’t mean that Joe supports every opinion contained in that post.

  37. dhogaza says:

    Shame on those who attack earnest dissent by calling for an extinguishment of alternative belief without debate by claiming that censorship for ‘the greater good’ is an inalienable right!

    I think Congress should investigate whether or not the earth is flat before passing any legislation that enables NASA to launch any more satellites.

  38. Mike D says:

    “It may be hard to concieve but at Watts-up-with-that people are allowed to state their opinions whether pro or anti AGW. Letting someone express their view on his blog does not mean he supports such an opinion.”

    Uh, yeah that’s the whole point of this post dude

  39. RoyFOMR says:

    Ian Forrester

    “RoyFOMR so you think it is all right for deniers to be completely dishonest in their attacks on the science behind AGW?”
    Absolutely not Ian
    “Telling lies is anathema to science and that is all the deniers have at present”

    Absolutely correct Ian until the ‘and’ – after that I’m in denial- first about the use of the word deniers- that’s subjective and perjorative- secondly the imputation that dishonesty rules their scepticsm should be for the jury and not the prosecution. And with respect- your objectivity is far from apparent.

  40. RoyFOMR says:

    Ian, Please forgive me if I’m seemingly against what you said. I’m simply trying to put what I believe is my opinion rightly or wrongly. I’m willing to be put right

  41. gmo says:

    RoyFOMR did at least at first say “earnest dissent”. Thus it seems the logic is that it would be okay for people to try to stifle someone from telling people it is okay to stick giant knives into their necks and abdomens to improve their health… Unless that someone personally believed that was indeed okay.

    In that case apparently the world would benefit from the “debate” between the stabbing hypothesis and the dogma of not impaling oneself. Anyone trying to shutdown the discussion and maintain the status quo consensus people should not stick knives in their gut would apparently be considered shameful by RoyFOMR. It would seem RoyFOMR thinks any honest opinion must be considered valuable and not dismissed even if the preponderance of evidence points toward the opinion having no basis in fact.

  42. RoyFOMR says:

    dhogaza Says:
    “I think Congress should investigate whether or not the earth is flat before passing any legislation that enables NASA to launch any more satellites”

    As much as I admire the consistency that you display wrt your understanding of matters scientific, I do fear that you may be similarly mistaken in the planar-nature of mother earth.
    AFAIK- Ms Gaia has sticky-out bits!

  43. Gail says:

    gmo watch out with the stabbing analogy. WUWT will take it to be personally threatening.

    Frankly it surprises me that mentioning violence as a possible outgrowth of climate chaos should be controversial since I have read several stories stating that the US Defense Dept. finds it necessary to prepare for war, piracy, and other attacks as a direct consequent of climate chaos – and if war isn’t violent, I don’t know what is.

  44. RoyFOMR says:

    GMO

    “It would seem RoyFOMR thinks any honest opinion must be considered valuable and not dismissed even if the preponderance of evidence points toward the opinion having no basis in fact”

    Indeed, I do GMO. Honest opinion has a basis, maybe shaky, maybe untrue but, first of all, honest, and undeserving of the dishonest intentions insinuated by far, too many.

    Yup, GMO, we have to share the same world but not, always the same world view. I’ll differ with you on the last part of your post – but, before that thanks for a lovely undestanding and acceptance of the thoughts of others.

    “preponderance of evidence points toward the opinion having no basis in fact”

    You may be spot on GMO with your closing sentence and, not long ago, I spoke similar words myself- now, I’m far more uncertain, first about the reality about the substantiveness of the evidence-other than repetition- and, secondly, my re-interpetation of the word ‘fact’ as being less-inclusive of GCM scenarios than hitherto.

    Anyway, thank you for a thoughtfull and balanced input. I appreciated that very much

  45. RoyFOMR says:

    It’s getting close to bed-time for an old bloke like me but before I slip into throat-drying and noisy unconciousness can I say a thank you to Joe for allowing me the freedom to express views that, more than likely, are diametrically opposed to those that underpin this blog.

    Mr Romm thank you – hope you’re wrong- but you’re clearly a darned good and sincere bloke.

    [JR: Thanks. I don’t moderate this blog near as much as people think, certainly no more than any similar blog — heck Morano doesn’t even seem to take comments. But the few folks who I do moderate or ban are a disproportionately noisy group.]

  46. counters says:

    Re: Monkey boy,

    Not quite. I’m banned from WUWT, as are a number of other posters who spent time there calling out the numerous falsehoods asserted there everyday. WUWT doesn’t respect alternate opinions because none are presented there. You have to go to dedicated partisan political sites to find such homogeneous, repetitive comments.

  47. Gail says:

    RoyFOMR you are probably in dreamland by now. I am being subjected to multiple taped episodes of “So You Think You Can Dance” by several returning biological and semi-adopted college students. On the whole, less messy than beer pong.

    I find that, as an “older” person, I have a somewhat different perspective than you evince.

    First, I can remember very different patterns of weather and vegetative growth.

    I’ve also had a kid with cancer and been through that nightmare of “This can’t be happening to me it only happens to someone else.”

    So perhaps that has enabled me to recognize that in fact, the worst most unimaginable thing CAN actually happen, to me.

    If you recognize that humans have altered the climate through significant greenhouse gas emissions, then it logically follows that mass extinctions will be the result. Unless you don’t know or understand or believe in evolution, there is no way to dispute this.

    Worth another link for those who missed it on the prior post:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

  48. Francis says:

    Anthony Watts deserves a statue in Washington.
    One of few people that dare speak out and inform us what is really happening. I checked the facts, not the assumptions of some computer model and conclude he is right, you are wrong.Forget it Mr. Romm, you are wasting your time writing this blog.
    The thing is that the Left absolutely want the theory to be true.
    Seen the latest NASA study? Oh, perhaps it could be the sun? Get out of here! Who would have thought!
    I have never seen so much bitterness and pure envy being uttered by one man in one blog. I guess it pays the mortgage and the Prius lease.

  49. Leland Palmer says:

    I’ve been wondering about the funding of Watts Up With That, I’ve done a very brief search but so far have come up with no direct sources of funding.

    If you keep refreshing the page, though, one advertisment that pops up a lot in the “Ads by Google” is an ad that has a background of an American flag, that says “Want to increase America’s Energy Security?”. If you click on this ad, the site it sends you to is Energy Tomorrow, which is apparently a project of the American Petroleum Institute.

    Does Watts Up With That therefore accept advertising revenue from the American Petroleum Institute?

    Other smaller ads appear from other environmental organizations including Al Gore’s We Can Solve it.

    Another small ad that appears is from newgencoal[dot]au, a website of the Australian Coal Association, which claims to have committed over 1 billion dollars to the development of CCS for clean coal. Does the ACA, which is spending big bucks to develop CCS, so they claim, know that their ads are running on a denialist website? If global warming does not exist, why are they wiling to throw a billion dollars away for nothing?

    So, if the funding is obscure, where does Watts get his information?

    As has probably already been posted on this blog, it appears that there was a coordinated denialist network being run out of Senator Inhofe’s office by Marc Morano, that regularly fed WUWT information.

    After this network was exposed by The Wonk Room at ThinkProgress, Morano left Inhofe’s office and was hired to blog by:

    http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/tag/morano/

    The Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a toxic pollution front group founded by the Richard Mellon Scaife fortune, recently hired Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) climate denier guru, Marc Morano, to set up shop at ClimateDepot [dot] com

    So, this network apparently goes back to Scaife, again, a man that has funded CIA propaganda efforts overseas (and at home?). Certainly, he has given a staggering one billion dollars to far right groups over the years, through his “charitable” foundations, and was alleged by Joe Conason in his excellent book “The Hunting of the President” to have bankrolled many aspects of the Clinton impeachment effort.

    The original investigation, that apparently resulted in Morano being fired, uncovered this network of deniers, apparently fed information regularly by Morano:

    Promoted on the Drudge Report and Fox News, Morano’s moronic misinformation enters mainstream discourse through columns by Barnes, George Will, Robert Samuelson, and others. Many in the Morano gang are funded by right-wing think tanks, though a few are committed activists, conspiracy theorists who believe their homebrew interpretations of climate data. Others are aging scientists with strong conservative beliefs, motivating them to challenge action on global warming not because they disbelieve its existence, but because they are ideologically opposed to regulation of pollution:

    Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers
    Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Committee on the Environment and Public Works

    The Scientists
    Name Website Affiliations
    Bob Carter James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
    John Christy University of Alabama at Huntsville
    David Deming University of Oklahoma /
    National Center for Policy Analysis
    David Douglass University of Rochester
    Don Easterbrook Western Washington University
    Stanley Goldenberg NOAA
    Vincent Gray New Zealand Climate Science Coalition /
    Natural Resources Stewardship Project
    William Gray Colorado State University (ret.)
    Ben Herman University of Arizona
    Craig Idso co2science.org Arizona State University /
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
    Richard Lindzen Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Roger Pielke Colorado State University (ret.)
    James A. Peden Extranuclear Laboratories (ret.)
    Hans Schreuder ilovemycarbondioxide.com Rocky Mountain Research Station
    Thomas P. Sheahen Western Technology, Inc.
    Fred Singer University of Virginia (ret.) /
    Science and Environmental Policy Project /
    National Center for Policy Analysis
    Roy Spencer drroyspencer.com University of Alabama at Huntsville /
    Marshall Institute /
    Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
    Philip Stott University of London (ret.)
    Willie Wei-Hock Soon Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics /
    Marshall Institute /
    Fraser Institute /
    Science and Public Policy Institute
    Brian Valentine Department of Energy

    The Bloggers
    Michael Asher dailytech.com
    Joseph Bast globalwarmingheartland.org Heartland Institute
    Edward John Craig planetgore.nationalreview.com National Review
    Dan Gainor newsbusters.org Media Research Center
    Barry Hearn junkscience.com
    Steven Milloy junkscience.com Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Tom Nelson tomnelson.blogspot.com
    Lubos Motl motls.blogspot.com Harvard University (ret.)
    Roger Pielke, Jr. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu University of Colorado
    Jon Jay Ray jonjayray.blogspot.com
    Gabriel Rychert co2sceptics.com
    Marc Sheppard opinioneditorials.com Frontiers of Freedom
    Noel Sheppard newsbusters.org Media Research Center
    Matthew Sheffield newsbusters.org Media Research Center
    Anthony Watts wattsupwiththat.com
    surfacestations.org

    The “Think Tankers”
    Dennis Avery hudson.org Hudson Institute
    Mike Burita accf.org American Council for Capital Formation
    Terry Dunleavy climatescience.org.nz New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
    Robert Ferguson scienceandpublicpolicy.org Science and Public Policy Institute
    Tom Harris climatescienceinternational.org International Climate Science Coalition
    Christopher Monckton scienceandpublicpolicy.org Science and Public Policy Institute
    Craig Rucker cfact.org Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
    James Taylor heartland.org Heartland Institute

    The Weathermen
    William M. Briggs wmbriggs.com statistician
    Richard S. Courtney CoalTrans International (ret.)
    Joseph D’Aleo icecap.us Weather Channel (ret.)
    Art Horn theartofweather.com weatherman (ret.)
    Alan Siddons
    George E. Smith Monsanto, Hewlett Packard (ret.)
    James Spann jamesspann.com weatherman, ABC 33/40
    Herb Stevens weatherman (ret.)

    – The Scientists: Ph.D.s, often with strong industry ties, who may or may not have experience in climate science, but are ready to denounce the scientific consensus

    – The Bloggers: They flood the Web with “news” and opinion, ready to be picked up by Drudge, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber

    – The “Think Tankers”: Ready spokesmen associated with impressive-sounding organizations, often founded by themselves

    – The Weathermen: Meteorologists, statisticians, and corporate scientists not associated with a think tank or university, but happy to give reporters their “expert” opinion

    Poor Joe. He has to deal not only with us, but with paid, professional denialists whose ethics can apparently include shouting “no fire” in a burning biosphere.

    Many of the organizations listed above have accepted money not only from ExxonMobil but also from a conservative network of funders including the Scaife foundations. The George C. Marshall Institute, whose Dr. Happer recently testified before the Senate that the Earth is in a “CO2 drought”, for example has accepted around 6 million dollars from this network of conservative “charitable” foundations, as documented by Mediatransparency, and has also accepted something like $600,000 directly from ExxonMobil.

  50. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi Francis-

    I have a long post, waiting to clear the moderation filter, which you might find interesting.

    That post links to an investigation by The Wonk Room of Think Progress that showed that Watts was part of a climate denialist network run by Marc Morano out of Senator Inhofe’s office.

    After this expose, Marc Morano left Senator Inhofe’s office, and was immediately hired by:

    The Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a toxic pollution front group founded by the Richard Mellon Scaife fortune, recently hired Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) climate denier guru, Marc Morano, to set up shop at ClimateDepot [dot] com

    Scaife has given over a billion dollars to far right causes over the last 30 years.

    Does it ever bother you, Francis, that the people you idolize are getting paid to say what they say?

  51. Konrad says:

    I am skeptical regarding the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, and I have a serious question to ask of those posting on this site. I normally visit Real Climate to read alternative views to my own, but clicked by here after reading posts on WUWT. I noticed that Joe Romm seemed to have a reasonably balanced approach to posting, so I thought this might be an appropriate forum to ask my question.

    The question is simply – What if the hypothesis of significant anthropogenic co2 induced global warming is proved to be incorrect? I would like to ask you to think for a bit before posting a response. While you are thinking about this I could explain my position.

    I have an industrial design degree and I am very pro science. I would consider my self environmentally aware. I don’t own a car, I recycle and I pay the optional surcharge on my electricity bill to support alternative energy. As a designer I am very interested in what I consider environmentally friendly technologies. I appreciate such things as Sapphire Energy’s algae biofuel research. I feel hybrid pneumatic cars have great potential and am excited about progress in split spectrum PV collectors. But I have great concern that the environmental movement has become reduced to a monolithic focus on co2. I am worried that much worthwhile technological development will be delayed or abandoned in the fallout and backlash if the AGW hypothesis is proved false.

    I know many people here believe absolutely in AGW and can tell me in great detail why it is real. What I would appreciate instead is responses addressing the hypothetical question – What if the hypothesis of significant anthropogenic co2 induced global warming is proved to be incorrect?

  52. hapa says:

    it shouldn’t be a statue. it should be a big inflatable gorilla over his used car dealership.

  53. Ian Forrester says:

    Konrad, the theory (and it is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis) of CO2 induced AGW is as solid as the theory of gravity. Do you even think that Newton may be wrong and the apples will rise from the ground and settle in the tree? Well your comment about CO2 induced AGW is just as fanciful.

    Scientists have understood the physical and chemical background as to why increasing CO2 concentrations will raise the global temperature for over 100 years; it is unlikely to change because people at WhatsWrongwithWatt do not like it.

    Scientific theories are based on rigorous measurement, experimental results and logical thinking not on “opinions” of biased and prejudiced people.

  54. paulm says:

    I think this might turn out to be a worth while exercise as you get the feeling that some of the deniers are teetering and are will be waking up to the horror of GW.

  55. dhogaza says:

    As much as I admire the consistency that you display wrt your understanding of matters scientific, I do fear that you may be similarly mistaken in the planar-nature of mother earth.
    AFAIK- Ms Gaia has sticky-out bits!

    What, no “teach the controversy”, while you argue against equally solid climate science?

    ideologically driven. No doubt.

  56. dhogaza says:

    Frankly it surprises me that mentioning violence as a possible outgrowth of climate chaos should be controversial since I have read several stories stating that the US Defense Dept. finds it necessary to prepare for war, piracy, and other attacks as a direct consequent of climate chaos – and if war isn’t violent, I don’t know what is.

    You’re quoting a Bush-administration evaluation (as you know, but others might not).

    So, yes. you’re right, even when viewed through the W administration lens … what you describe is insane.

  57. dhogaza says:

    “It would seem RoyFOMR thinks any honest opinion must be considered valuable and not dismissed even if the preponderance of evidence points toward the opinion having no basis in fact”

    Indeed, I do GMO. Honest opinion has a basis, maybe shaky, maybe untrue but, first of all, honest, and undeserving of the dishonest intentions insinuated by far, too many.

    So you *do* believe that flat-earthers should have equal say regarding policy than scientists!

    I KNEW IT!

  58. dhogaza says:

    It’s getting close to bed-time for an old bloke like me but before I slip into throat-drying and noisy unconciousness can I say a thank you to Joe for allowing me the freedom to express views that, more than likely, are diametrically opposed to those that underpin this blog.

    It’s good of you to say this, Even better, tell those who claim this blog “deletes all dissent” are full of it. Go visit RealClimate, post, and after say the same to those who claim RealClimate deletes all dissenting voices.

    And, after that, ask if those who lie about supposed censorship here or elsewhere, are any more believable when it comes to science.

  59. dhogaza says:

    Not quite. I’m banned from WUWT, as are a number of other posters who spent time there calling out the numerous falsehoods asserted there everyday.

    WUWT claims I can post under my (easy to google real name) if I post under my real name, rather than my internet name, dhogaza.

    I’ve been censured/deleted/etc there forever. Many others report the same.

    I’m tempted to post exceedingly offensive stuff under my “real” name (though my self-adopted “dhogaza” name is as real as anything, to me) but he’ll just ban me and pretend he never said it.

  60. gt says:

    Konrad: wow, I thought by not owning a TV, I am living on the edge of a “green” life. You beat me by not owning a car. I appreciate your attempt to be frugal, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

    Yet, don’t give up your curiosity and inquiring mind on the issue of climate change. Always challenge what has been presented to you, from both sides. It is an issue that may ultimately involve trillions of dollars, which may affect this generation and many more to come. Be as informed as you can. The congress stupidly and sheepishly allowed the Fed to come to existence; now almost 100 years later, we are still paying the price.

  61. dhogaza says:

    The question is simply – What if the hypothesis of significant anthropogenic co2 induced global warming is proved to be incorrect?

    Dude, an advantage of laboratory and theoretical science is that there’s good documentation of observations and mathematical-derived physics.

    What you are asking is like … “what if the hypothesis that there are electrons that can flow through material is proved to be incorrect?” (hint, you wouldn’t be able to read this, nor reply, nor even get your laptop to go “beep”).

    If the *theory* of AGW CO2-forced warming is “proven false”, then the same theory that explains why NATURAL CO2 is why we ARE NOT LIVING ON A FROZEN EARTH must be false.

    Do we live on snowball earth? No? Then what is your sky-fairy explanation for that, if CO2 physics is wrong?

  62. dhogaza says:

    Yet, don’t give up your curiosity and inquiring mind on the issue of climate change. Always challenge what has been presented to you, from both sides

    Yes, by all means, repeat the basic physical experiments and re-check the math of physicists to make sure they’ve made no mistake.

    I’m sure you have the skills, and will STFU until you follow your own advice and replicate the basic physical experiments, right?

  63. hunter says:

    “Swift Boat smearer”?
    lol.
    AGW promoters are running into the problem all apocalypse predictors run into:
    The apocalypse ain’t coming as predicted.
    That forces the desperation of making the fatal error:
    Making more, not less, specific predictions.
    More specificity does not make something that one wants to happen, happen.
    And the second, making the foolish error of confabulating those who doubt the apocalypse as part of a great conspiracy.
    Belittling and clumping together those who disagree with you only makes you look even more wild eyed and less credible.

    Ian,
    No one doubts the physics of CO2. The problem is CO2 is part of a system. That system is not well understood, and the consensus models have not predicted its influence well.

  64. dhogaza says:

    Meanwhile at WUWT:

    Dickinson ND sees first June snowfall in 60 years.

    Again, weather proves climate trends false.

    Meanwhile, in PDX, we spent much of the last two weeks at near-record high temps.

    Not worthy of a posting a WUWT.

    I’m confused … anyone wonder why?

  65. dhogaza says:

    No one doubts the physics of CO2.

    Wrong, the denialsphere often still argues that CO2 absorption of longwave IR is fully block 30m or so about the surface.

    That’s an argument against the physics of CO2.

    The problem is CO2 is part of a system. That system is not well understood

    Assertion without evidence. The system is modeled and those models fit paleoclimate and current climate changes very well.

    , and the consensus models have not predicted its influence well.

    Wrong. Google it your effing self.

  66. hapa says:

    konrad, joe has roughly 100,000 articles here on why “we’ll just adapt” is a heaping crock.

  67. gt says:

    dhogaza Says:
    June 7th, 2009 at 12:45 am

    Using terms like STFU will not enhance your creditability among the neutrals; rather it show what type of person you are, which more likely turns people away from what you advocate.

    And what experiments are you talking about? No I can’t perform experiments on things as grand as the atmosphere. I can’t create an atmosphere with more or less CO2. I can’t produce El Nino or La Nina. Placing the burden on inquiring minds in order to stifle discussion seems to be typical of you. I hope that’s not typical of ACW proponents in general.

  68. paulm says:

    Billion-tonne iceberg could be Arctic shipping hazard

    http://www.vancouversun.com/Technology/Billion+tonne+iceberg+could+Arctic+shipping+hazard/1670898/story.html

    In an interview last year with Canwest News Service, Canadian Ice Service director Douglas Bancroft warned that although the opening of Arctic sea ice in recent years holds the promise of more shipping in the Northwest Passage and other polar routes, the breakup of multi-year ice caused by record-setting warm temperatures could also pose an increased hazard for navigation.

  69. gt says:

    dhogaza Says:
    June 7th, 2009 at 1:04 am

    “Assertion without evidence. The system is modeled and those models fit paleoclimate and current climate changes very well.”

    Instead of demanding evidence from others relentlessly, why don’t you provide some. Show a link backing your claim. That will benefit a lot of people.

  70. caerbannog says:


    Francis Says:
    June 6th, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    Anthony Watts deserves a statue in Washington.
    One of few people that dare speak out and inform us what is really happening. I checked the facts, not the assumptions of some computer model and conclude he is right, you are wrong.Forget it Mr. Romm, you are wasting your time writing this blog.

    Here are two of Watts’ posts that are so egregiously wrong that bright high-school students would have no trouble identifying the blunders:

    wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies (scroll down to the histogram discussion and see for yourself how badly Watts screwed up)

    wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/ (compare Watts’ take on the referenced paper with what the paper actually says about cosmic rays and CFC’s)

    If you cannot identify the obvious blunders committed by Watts, then you have no business discussing global-warming on *any* forum.

  71. Konrad says:

    Ian,
    While I appreciate your response, I feel it did not directly address the hypothetical question I asked. I did indicate in my original posting that I was skeptical of AGW, and I appreciate that many posting on this site hold different views. The potential dangers of AGW to the environment have been widely discussed. My hypothetical question related to the risks to the environmental movement and green technology if AGW proves to be incorrect.

  72. caerbannog says:


    My hypothetical question related to the risks to the environmental movement and green technology if AGW proves to be incorrect.

    You may as well ask about potential risks to biotechnology if evolution proves to be incorrect.

  73. Craig Allen says:

    This claim that using less energy necessarily means living a more impoverished life is Neanderthal thinking. Let me provide a simple and very clear example of how using less energy can actually radically improve the living standards of poor people in Africa and elsewhere:

    Many people living subsistence lifestyles spend an enormous amount of time and effort gathering firewood for cooking. This reduces the time they have to devote to farming, family and other activities. It also causes widespread deforestation and associated environmental degradation.

    The development and promotion of more efficient stove designs that are easy to build using local materials is greatly reducing the effort required in firewood collection, and allowing the deforestation to be reversed.

    For more details see http://www.selfhelpafrica.com/selfhelp/Main/TECH-cooking.htm

    This is just one example of how REDUCING energy use IMPROVES peoples lives.

    And there must be thousands of other such examples applicable to people living in both developed and developing countries.

    Let me add that until recently I cooked all my food and heated my house using an efficient wood stove, burning sustainably grown fire-wood. Now I live in a house where we use gas. My greenhouse emission have increased, but I feel no more comfortable.

    I’ll give you another example. I enjoy cross skiing and snow camping in the Australian Alps. I use an extremely light, simple, fail-proof stove which allows you to cook your food with a few millilitres of metholated spirits. The rest of my gear is similarly lightweight, minimalist and efficient. I once met a couple of blokes trudging up Mount Bogong in snow shoes. They were carrying an axe, a huge bundle of chopped firewood, a chunky cast iron fire grate and a heavy canvass tent. They were going to use several orders of magnitude more energy than I to cook their dinner (let alone the energy it took them to get it there!) . Would you claim that they were therefore better off than I?

    PS: Apologises to any Neanderthals readers for disparaging their race with the above comparison to climate denial challenged thinking.

  74. paulm says:

    Global warming is here and now. Ask those in the know….

    Inuit village blames climate change for strange events
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hewptQHTBRsfHlPy3woJJRWo93rA

    “Climate change is real,” says Ron Mongeau, the town manager of Pangnirtung, a postcard-pretty spot girded by mountains and glacial fjords.

    “It’s not happening tomorrow or next week. It’s happening here and it’s affecting the life of everybody in the Arctic – every day.”

  75. Mike D says:

    Who cares what Marc Morano says about anything? Lots of idiots say all kinds of ridiculous things on the internet. The only reason anyone pays attention to HIM is because the people he slanders for some reason feel the need to defend themselves. What’s the point? You’re not going to get him to change his mind or retract anything, because he’s already well aware that most of what he says is bullsh*t. He’s a professional bullsh*tter. That’s his job. So just ignore him. It’s not like he’s done anything to make his opinion on anything worth a damn. He’s nothing and nobody. But by responding to him, you just draw more attention to him, which is exactly what he wants. It just legitimizes him, makes him a player. If everyone just tuned him out, he’d eventually crawl back into whatever fetid, slime-filled hole in the ground he crawled out of.

  76. James Allison says:

    I thought this was a science blog. The last two blogs have been dedicated to denigrating WUWT. Where is the science debate?

    My country has a small population yet we produce every year a world class rugby team. Our All Blacks always punch above their weight -figuratively speaking – and that success comes from focussing on playing the ball not the man.

    Many contributors here could learn from that.

  77. Craig Allen says:

    Hey James, If the other team’s main strategy is playing the man and not playing honestly by the rules, it’s not necessarily a good strategy to continue to play as if they are good honest chums. That makes you a weak kneed sucker.

  78. Craig Allen says:

    PS: Not that I’m advocating not playing by the rules yourself; just that you need play harder in response and to robustly repel what the other side is sending your way.

  79. A new paper out yesterday in AGU J. of Atmospheres finally buries for good the myth of “satellites show cooling”. Not that these folks will not continue to spout the disinformation.
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011267.shtml

  80. Bart van Deenen says:

    I just wanted to post that one does not need to be anti-science to not believe in AGW. I have a MSc in experimental physics (cum laude) and in electronics, I’ve worked as a physicist and scientific equipment and software builder my whole life, and I find the evidence for AGW unconvincing. I’ve read quite a few scientific articles on global warming, and I find that they’re generally not very rigorous, and contain as many opinions as researched facts (Solanki ’04 is a good example, putting things in the article summary that are not even described in the article and are therefore pure opinion in the context of the article). I also know that there are serious scientists (Professor of paleo-ecology Dr. Bas van Geel of the University of Amsterdam for instance) who similarly are not convinced.
    I also know personally that the long term predictive results of GCM’s have no validity whatsoever. Why? Because non-linearities and sub-gridsize mechanisms prevent accurate modeling over long term. This does not even include the fact that most of these models have no software quality control whatsoever, so they will be full of bugs, that will only be found when they provide ‘funny’ results.
    I have personally seen the results of a large scale Fortran bug-fest (not my program, but I found some of the massive bugs) being written into law in the Netherlands, and I’m seeing similar things happen currently with GCM outputs.

    I’m sure I won’t turn anyones mind, I just wanted to let you hear another part of the story.

  81. ecostew says:

    In addition of AGW: Intensifying ocean acidification/ecosystem destruction remains a huge issue (6/1/01: 70 national science academies: deep and rapid reductions of carbon dioxide emissions of at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and much more thereafter or confront an underwater catastrophe, with irreversible changes in the makeup of marine biodiversity).

  82. Bob Wright says:

    I once visited Wattsup. The article was about an Al Gore talk, and at the end the author instructed the posters to count all the errors. After reading about 20 comments that mostly read stuff like “Made me want to puke!”, I posted simply: “and the first error is ????”. The comment was put into moderation.

  83. DavidCOG says:

    I think a better analogy for anthropogenic climate change deniers is that they are like a group claiming smoking does not cause lung and heart disease, or that CFCs do not damage the ozone – and as most of us know, global warming denial also comes from the same groups that denied exactly those things.

    In a just world, Watts and Morano’s distortion and outright lies would be held to account in a court of law. Of course, that can never happen – it’s near-impossible to separate stupidity from dishonesty – and where would one stop when there are thousands of these idiots / liars.

    However, they will receive their just reward – along with their gang of ‘useful idiot’ followers – in the form of growing derision and contempt from all of those who come to understand what is happening to this planet at our hands.

    Also, for those tempted to argue with the Deniers who arrive to pollute this blog, consider that you will never ‘win’ because their final refuge will be conspiracy:

    > Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information. – http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

    Talk *about* them – don’t talk *to* them. Or, simply ignore them – I suspect most of them simply crave the attention that their idiotic output normally brings.

  84. Andrew Robinson says:

    Do you guys ever address the work of Prof Roger A. Pielke, Sr. who recently took up the “challenge” of Prof Stephen Schneider to debate this issue?

    Just in case you weren’t aware, he’s of the view that:
    a) CO2 is a human climate forcing, along with other GHGs, sure but so are a number of other anthropogenic factors including aerosols and land use: these other forcings do not get the weight that they deserve in the public debate, with policymakers and even in professional scientific circles there are groups who wish to downplay their relevance;
    b) the IPCC is instrumental in pushing the GHG aspect of this debate: it represents the “narrow perspective” on climate science;
    c) upper ocean temperature has been decreasing since 2003;
    d) the multi-decadal predictive skill exhibited by the GCMs is extremely poor;
    e) alarmism is unwarranted; concern about human impacts is reasonable.

  85. dhogaza says:

    Do you guys ever address the work of Prof Roger A. Pielke, Sr

    Gone emeritus. He treats Watts as a serious source.

    His son – something of a contrarian/denialist as well – is much more rational.

  86. dhogaza says:

    c) upper ocean temperature has been decreasing since 2003;

    Sr. is either having a senior moment or is being dishonest, because any scientist knows that even if true (and there’s quite a bit of uncertainty here) it’s short term and nothing other than noise in the system.

  87. dhogaza says:

    Instead of demanding evidence from others relentlessly, why don’t you provide some. Show a link backing your claim. That will benefit a lot of people.

    IPCC.

  88. dhogaza says:

    And what experiments are you talking about? No I can’t perform experiments on things as grand as the atmosphere.

    Then you’ll just have to accept the results of those who’ve done the physics, won’t you?

  89. dhogaza says:

    My hypothetical question related to the risks to the environmental movement and green technology if AGW proves to be incorrect.

    This is sort of asking what the risk is to the strategic air command if uranium fission proves to be false.

  90. dhogaza says:

    I’m sure I won’t turn anyones mind, I just wanted to let you hear another part of the story.

    No, such drivel isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

    Come back when you’ve proven that CO2 doesn’t absorb LW IR.

  91. dhogaza says:

    I also know personally that the long term predictive results of GCM’s have no validity whatsoever.

    Yet, many of their predictions have proven valid. Odd, isn’t it?

    Which ones? You’re the denier, you go find out.

  92. john says:

    Let’s not fall into their frame by giving any credence whatsoever to all the WUdeniers talk about letting people “express their opinions.” AGW isn’t a matter of opinion — it’s as near an incontrovertible fact as science is likely to come, so what some misinformed yahoo thinks about it cannot and should not be accorded the same standing as reality.

  93. Brooks says:

    Konrad,
    “My hypothetical question related to the risks to the environmental movement and green technology if AGW proves to be incorrect.”

    1) I have searched for several years now for credible information showing AGW is not occurring and have not found it. In fact, increasingly, the predictions for the impact of AGW have consistently proven conservative.

    2) I ask you to consider what’s the worst that will happen if we have a world in which buildings, transportation, etc., are far more energy efficient, our electrical power comes predominately from cleaner sources, water is used much more efficiently, rain forests are left standing, mountain top coal removal is no more, the air and water are much cleaner, we are spending far less on energy in general. Sounds like a world I’d like to live in.

    3) I then ask you to consider the world matching AGW predictions because we do NOTHING.

    It’s a classic no-brainer.

  94. Paul Tonita says:

    Parallel wrote:

    I wonder why the AGW support blogs find it so tough to allow dissent, but tend to answer the difficult points with ad hominems. Isn’t that the way science is meant to be advanced?

    The mere fact that you equate blog comments with the advancement of science is pretty telling. The advancement of science is through debate of a different sort, one where rhetoric is meaningless.

  95. Oliver says:

    “Konrad, the theory (and it is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis) of CO2 induced AGW is as solid as the theory of gravity.”

    Houston: “1 minute, and counting….”
    Armstrong: “Looking good here Houston, wish us luck!”
    Houston:”You shouldn’t need it, as long as the gravitational constant is within a few percent of 6.673 E-11″
    Armstrong:”What’s that Houston? – you’re breaking up…”
    Houston:”Well, there’s pretty good agreement that G is somewhere between 3.0 E-11 and 10.0 E-11, so we use 6.673 in the orbital calculations. Nothing you should worry about – the important thing is that we get this thing off the launching pad!”
    Armstrong:”Er…Houston…ummm…hold on a sec…”
    Houston (interrupting): “4, 3, 2, 1 – IGNITION”

    (Thread is filed under ‘humor’)

  96. Hoi Polloi says:

    “Gone emeritus. He treats Watts as a serious source.” (Dhogaza Oracle).

    Wow… rarely I’ve seen a better refute… And BTW your credentials are, Dhogaza?

  97. Sam Spade says:

    This isn’t my kind of fight. These are all matters that I try to filter out as I scan my way down a page. Looking for what is, hopefully, right in the science.

    But judgement from there would give WattsUpWithThat a failing grade, for partiality that’s offensive to reality.

    And number one in the litany would be the desecration (with flaunting) of the “weather is not climate” principle. Mentioning a few days of cold, when a few years wouldn’t be enough.

  98. dhogaza says:

    Wow… rarely I’ve seen a better refute…

    It was succinct, wasn’t it?

    And BTW your credentials are, Dhogaza?

    Got good grades in six grade science, which as someone mentions in the two WUWT-swamped threads, is all you need to understand that Watts is a scientific and statistics illiterate.

  99. David Harrington says:

    What about Antarctica?

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

    It seems that “Global” warming is not actually “Global” warming at all, oh no sorry, I mean “Climate Change”.

  100. dhogaza says:

    And number one in the litany would be the desecration (with flaunting) of the “weather is not climate” principle. Mentioning a few days of cold, when a few years wouldn’t be enough.

    It’s obvious that Watts is being sarcastic with his “weather is not climate” comment, because he obviously believes that his stream of anecdotal local/regional weather reports is one of the nails in AGW’s coffin (as they so like to say over there).

  101. Brewster says:

    Brooks, your answer is right on…

    But as for the concept that the theory being wrong, I think it would be easier to disprove the theory of Gravity.

  102. dhogaza says:

    What about Antarctica?

    http://nsidc.org/ data/ seaice_index/ images/ s_plot_hires.png

    It seems that “Global” warming is not actually “Global” warming at all, oh no sorry, I mean “Climate Change”.

    1. Global warming has never been represented by science as a phenomena causing every point on the globe to warm. There is regional warming and regional cooling, with a net rise in temperature.

    2. Slower temp rises at the south pole is a PREDICTION of climate science. You, too, appear to fall in the camp that regards a successful prediction of science to show that science is wrong, when rational people understand that successful predictions are evidence that science is doing something right.

    3. The Antarctic ice sheet (that ice lying on the continent itself) is losing mass, and the continent does show a slight warming trend, though *as predicted* not as much as the Arctic.

    4. Changes in sea ice in the antarctic are minimal compared to the Arctic, with no statistically significant trend. This, too, over the short-term has been an expectation of climate science, so the fact in no way undermines the state of the science.

  103. DavidCOG says:

    One of the amusing moments that reoccur with metronomic regularity is the cry of “ad hominem!” from the Deniers – but it takes the form:

    ACC rationalist: “Cletus says 2+2=5 – what a clown!”

    ACC Denier: “Oh! Oh! Ad hominem!”

  104. Brewster says:

    Harrington:

    It seems that “Global” warming is not actually “Global” warming at all, oh no sorry, I mean “Climate Change”.

    And that’s why “Climate Change” is the correct term.

    “Global Warming” leaves the impression that there’s going to be a nice, gentle increase in temperature all over the world. That’s not what’s happening.

    Increasing sea ice in Antarctica is a separate phenomenon only partially related to Climate Change: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421101629.htm

  105. hunter says:

    dhogaza,
    I have looked up the accuracy of GCM’s. The evidence for their accuracy is as as self-referential as any other faith-based system.
    But y’all keep up the good work. Soros pays good money for this site, and he wants his money’s worth.
    Brewster,
    You may have just made the best AGW true believer quote of all time.
    Thanks,

  106. Brewster says:

    Hunter:

    Whatever quote that is, thanks.

    You haven’t really read any of the links, have you?

  107. Hoi Polloi says:

    “It was succinct, wasn’t it?”

    A bit too succinct, would you mind to go more into detail with your argumentation against gone emeritus Pielke Sr.?

    “Got good grades in six grade science, which as someone mentions in the two WUWT-swamped threads, is all you need to understand that Watts is a scientific and statistics illiterate.

    Oh well, never mind my first remark…

  108. gmo says:

    Of the many, the “not actually ‘Global’ warming at all, oh no sorry, I mean ‘Climate Change'” line is one of the most laughably inane. I think that can almost be a sort of litmus test for seeing who may be reasoned with. If people are influenced by that line of (not really) thinking, they are probably not worth further time trying to explain the science.

    They are probably simply going to wave you off if you try to explain that local/regional effects will lead to variations including not only areas with much greater warming than the global average but also areas with periods of flat and even cooling temperatures. Trying to explain how the term “climate change” readily includes other effects such as changes in precipitation patterns that may not be considered if one thinks only in terms of “global warming” is unlikely to work with them.

    How can people think climate is too complicated to understand completely or to model effectively, then howl when “climate change” is used in place of the less apt “global warming”? It is difficult to combat the sort of logic that holds that since the Super Bowl is not played in a bowl and does not have X-ray vision that the Super Bowl must not really exist.

  109. Gail says:

    This is from a report to our very own Congress, published by agovernment agency:

    “The carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the earth’s atmosphere has reached
    385 parts per million (ppm), a level that is unprecedented over the past one-half million
    years (based on ice core data) to 24 million years (based on soil data) (Hoegh-Guldberget
    et al. 2007). CO2 levels have been increasing during the past 150 years, with most of the
    change occurring in just the past few decades. Global mean temperature has risen in
    response to increased CO2 concentration and is now higher than at any time in the past
    1,000 years (based on tree rings) to 160,000 years (based on oxygen 18 (18O) and
    deuterium (D) isotopes in ice). The relatively sudden increase in the energy balance of
    the planet, due to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, has led to abrupt global
    climate changes that alter physical processes and biological systems on many scales and
    will certainly affect ecosystems that support human society (IPCC 2007). One of the
    ways that a rapidly changing climate may affect ecosystems is by causing sudden,
    irreversible effects that fundamentally change the function and structure of the ecosystem
    with potentially huge impacts to human society (Wamelink et al.2003).”

    I suggest anyone who is “skeptical” or in “denial” or however you want to characterize it, consider the agencies who contributed to this study and under whose seal it was produced: The Department of Commerce. The President’s Office of Science and Technology. The Department of Energy.

    Regardless of how noisy the WUWT crowd may be, there don’t appear to be any illusions about the validity and seriousness of climate change amongst the legions of scientists who represent our nations finest source of accurate information. Notice, it is dated January 2009, so it was produced under the Bush Administration.

    http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-2/sap4-2-final-report-all.pdf

  110. David Harrington says:

    There has got to be some warming guys, the theory absolutely depends on it.

    Ultimately accurate satellite based measurements of truly global temperatures will settle the argument once and for all, we have had access to this type of data for less than 10 years but so far the satellite measurements from both the Hadley Center and the UAH disagree with James Hansen’s continually revised (upwards) instrumental readings. At the end of the day Global Warming or Climate Change or call it what you will, will actually have to show some footprint in accurate measurements such as those from satellites.

    So far we have not seen this and recently the trend has been downwards again, this in not a debatable point it is clearly shown in the measurements from Hadley and UAH. Since Al Gore released his AIT movie some 0.3 C has been given back of the 0.6 C of the previous 100 or so years. You can argue all you like about Climate Change being about more than temperature but the theory of AGW is absolutely lashed to the mast of higher temperatures and if these do not come to pass as predicted by the models then it is the models that are wrong not the real world.

    Out of interest exactly how many years of decreasing temperatures would it take for you to finally abandon the theory of AGW and declare the hypothesis to be false? 10, 15, 20 30??

    Let’s agree that if temperatures drop for the same period of time that they have most recently been rising we will have a big party and celebrate the fact that Armageddon has been called off? That would be 1976 – 1998, 19 years so we 10 years into that already. Deal?

  111. dhogaza says:

    I have looked up the accuracy of GCM’s. The evidence for their accuracy is as as self-referential as any other faith-based system

    Who to believe … “hunter”, who provides no evidence for his claim, doesn’t actually tell us exactly what is self-referential in the models, no link, nothing.

    Or the professionals who do the work?

    Who to believe … who to believe … such a conundrum!

  112. John says:

    Gail,

    Nice job at “cherry picking” your information. Every “fact” in your post is disputed in many scientific studies, but I wont bother listing them because if you really cared about the truth, you would have already done the investigating and you would already know that there is great debate on everything you listed as “fact”. You post these as if they were undisputed. Perhaps you think they are undisputed since you seem to think The Department of Commerce and the Department of Energy are scientific organizations and you think the President’s Office of Science and Technology is not a political motivated organization. Listing Government organizations who support your view is not evidence that it is correct. The scientific literature is greatly divided on this issue and it is dishonest to claim otherwise.

  113. parallel says:

    Wow, this thread has been active since last I posted. I see the tiresomely repeated clichés and insults, but as usual a complete lack of actual facts from the defenders of AGW. The argument would quickly end if there were convincing evidence that CO2 had caused the warming. No one disputes the small amount of warming directly caused by CO2 but the climate models assume that there is an unproven positive forcing factor of 2 – 5 depending on the model.

    The models also assume that a large part of this forcing is by changing the % cloud cover and have tuned their models on this assumption. According to Spencer, a 1% change in cloud cover either way would cause the Medieval Warming or the Little Ice Age. Where is the proof that cloud cover has been largely constant over time or that natural cloud variability doesn’t explain the temperature changes we see?

    There is no proof of anything beyond the warming trend of about 0.6C/century that has been going on since the little ice age. Projections from computer models are not proof. Even the IPCC wrote that global warming could be greater or less than they showed, but it is a little late to find that qualifier on page 797. The UAH record http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-may-down-again-near-zero/ shows there is currently only 0.04C rise in temperature since 1979. The model projections are all on the point of being falsified. I read that even James Hansen has recently dropped his forecast from 0.2C/decade to .15C and has commented that variations of the sun actually do effect the global temperature.

    Probably the best indicator of global temperature change is from the top 700 meters of the oceans. This indicates no temperature rise for the last 7 years. Lower atmospheric temperatures have not risen for 7 years either. Total sea ice from both the Arctic & Antarctic is near record levels. Where is all the supposed heat from increased CO2 hiding?

    The best explanation I have seen is by Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu who writes about Recovery from the Little Ice Age (A possible cause of global warming) and the Multi-decadal Oscillation (The recent halting of the warming.)

  114. caerbannog says:

    Reposted for the benefit of Watts fans here:

    wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies (scroll down to the histogram discussion and see for yourself how badly Watts screwed up)

    wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/ (compare Watts’ take on the referenced paper with what the paper actually says about cosmic rays and CFC’s)

    Do any of you guys understand how badly Watts screwed up here? And if Watts can’t even understand simple concepts that middle-school/high-school students should be able to understand, why should anyone listen to him?

  115. Chris Winter says:

    Among the 106 posts above are 18 either upholding the alleged openness of WUWT or in some way criticizing this blog’s lack of same.

    And, I might add, 3 which testify that their authors were banned from or censored on WUWT.

    I just wanted to add that perspective — not that I think it will end the dispute.

  116. dhogaza says:

    Ultimately accurate satellite based measurements of truly global temperatures will settle the argument once and for all, we have had access to this type of data for less than 10 years but so far the satellite measurements from both the Hadley Center and the UAH disagree with James Hansen’s continually revised (upwards) instrumental readings.

    This is simply untrue. There’s a very close agreement in trend between the satellite and ground record..

    If you look at the graph, the computed trend for three of the products – GISS, HADCrut, and RSS MSU satellite – are identical (the difference in the vertical scale is due to different base periods being chosen as “point 0″, the trend is the *slope* of the OLS fit, nearly identical for all three).

    It is true that the UAH satellite product shows a slightly lower slope than the other three, using exactly the same instrumentation as RSS.

    It is also true that the UAH product has been shown to be wrong on many occasions, and while the current difference between UAH and RSS has not been resolved, given the history, my bet is with UAH (because of the history of errors at UAH over the years).

  117. Chris Winter says:

    Oops! That should be “alleged lack of same.”

  118. dhogaza says:

    I see the tiresomely repeated clichés and insults, but as usual a complete lack of actual facts from the defenders of AGW.

    Yawn.

  119. David Harrington says:

    For the benefit of DHOGAZA

    Various charts etc. are to found linked to by this posting.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

    Also you did not answer the question? How many years would it take?

  120. dhogaza says:

    The argument would quickly end if there were convincing evidence that CO2 had caused the warming. No one disputes the small amount of warming directly caused by CO2 but the climate models assume that there is an unproven positive forcing factor of 2 – 5 depending on the model.

    The same lie, repeated endlessly, will not become true.

    Climate models do not ASSUME there’s a positive forcing factor of 2-5 (WTF? I think you mean 2C-5C per doubling of CO2).

    The 2C-4.5C forcing is a COMPUTATION of the model. Not an ASSUMPTION of the model. It’s a computation that falls out of the physics that form the basis for the models.

  121. dhogaza says:

    Probably the best indicator of global temperature change is from the top 700 meters of the oceans. This indicates no temperature rise for the last 7 years.

    Dude, you can’t even poach Pielke, Sr without screwing up? He argues that the best indicator of the change in energy in the system – *not* global temperature change (which is understood to mean the temperature of the atmosphere) – is ocean temps.

    He does this knowing that the existing ARGO and other data has problems which are still being resolved, and that we only have direct measurements of a very small percentage of the ocean.

    He also conveniently ignores the fact that changes in ocean temps derived from measuring rising sea levels shows a steady warming trend over decades, and that his “no warming from 2003″ is an unscientific statement as the period isn’t long enough to derive any statistical significance. It’s a classic cherry pick. There’s plenty of measured warming of the ocean (derived from sea level measurements) over periods of time long enough to have statistical significance.

  122. Gail says:

    John, you obviously did not bother to even skim the link. If those three government agencies aren’t sufficiently persuasive for you, how about the US Geological Survey, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the US Environmental Protection Agency? They are all listed as contributing to the report – are any of them “scientific” enough for you?

    The point of my earlier comment was really that the government and the scientific community just aren’t debating this anymore. The blogs may be debating but amongst the people who are going to be setting policy, the science IS settled.

    Let me ask you this: can you give me a link to ANY official, publicly sponsored government entity that questions climate change?

  123. dhogaza says:

    For those interested, here’s a graph showing the data for the “best indicator of global temperature”, according to Pielke, Sr and friends, but over a long enough period to show a trend as opposed to the cherry-pick they prefer.

  124. dhogaza says:

    Add to Gail’s list the National Academy of Scientists and every other non-government scientific association in the United States.

    And the Department of Defense.

  125. hapa says:

    watts is a special kind of conservative activist, the california variety. with any luck this year they’ll cripple the state government and put us in a tailspin deeper than michigan and alabama combined.

    lovely helpful people.

  126. Gary says:

    Wow… This is truly entertaining.
    Romm is getting just about as silly as the Science parody site DesmogBlog.
    Both are now so utterly un-credible they are just great joke sites to send to friends for a good laugh.

    Thanks much, you guys are so funny with this nonsense.

  127. dhogaza says:

    Various charts etc. are to found linked to by this posting.

    Stephen Goddard, feh. The article is a classic case of cherry-picking, right down to the famous “last 10 years” choosing the extremely high 1998 El Niño as a starting point.

    HADCrut and GISS don’t show complete agreement because HADCrut makes no effort to extrapolate data into the Arctic.

    Also you did not answer the question? How many years would it take?

    No number of years of a decreasing temperatures will disprove the basic physics of CO2 LW IR absorption and consequent warming.

    As to how many years of data is necessary to show a significant trend that would indicate we’re missing something that counters that? 30 years is the established figure. So-called “current cooling” is no different than expected given *known variability* and length of time. You can artificially create a trend overlaid with AR1 noise corresponding to known variation in climate and create decade-long periods of “cooling” EVEN THOUGH THE TREND IS KNOWN TO BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT UPWARDS BECAUSE IT’S AN ARTIFICIAL DATASET.

    Tamino demonstrated this at Open Mind about a year ago.

    Recently Science published a piece showing the same thing.

    Anyone who suggests data this decade is at all unexpected or unusual simply exposes their statistical illiteracy – as Goddard does in the piece you reference.

    Unfortunately, it’s entirely representative of the “quality” of his work.

  128. dhogaza says:

    David Harrington – some of my longer posts (and one shorter one with a single URL in it) are hung up in the moderation queue.

  129. David B. Benson says:

    Wow, at least 121 comments and still carrying on…

    Here is a useful quotation.

    Jim Galasyn:
    Fundamentally, climate science is based on well-understood principles of thermodynamics. Before humans burned the sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) and released CO2, Earth was in radiative near-equilibrium with space. Humans introduced a sudden, 500-gigaton excursion in the global carbon budget. Because CO2 is a “heat-trapping gas,” Earth is now in disequilibrium with space. To return to equilibrium, the atmosphere must warm.
    The rest is details. Interesting details, to be sure, but the basic thermodynamics have been understood since Svante Arrhenius published in 1896.

  130. Dano says:

    Hmmm. Spam queue.

    D

  131. paulm says:

    Here is the overwhelming consensus…


    Scientific opinion on climate change

  132. parallel says:

    dhogaza wrote:
    “Climate models do not ASSUME there’s a positive forcing factor of 2-5 (WTF? I think you mean 2C-5C per doubling of CO2).
    The 2C-4.5C forcing is a COMPUTATION of the model. Not an ASSUMPTION of the model. It’s a computation that falls out of the physics that form the basis for the models.”

    It is clear from his comment that he doesn’t have even a basic understanding of how GCMs work. Not that that will stop him commenting.

  133. Jeff Green says:

    For Konrad and other open minded skeptics. You expressed doubt about co2 and its effect on our environment. There is a long history of people invetisgating co2 and scientists taking the same stand then as you are now.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

  134. dhogaza says:

    It is clear from his comment that he doesn’t have even a basic understanding of how GCMs work. Not that that will stop him commenting.

    How much would you like to bet?

    From NASA:

    The climate modeling program at GISS is primarily aimed at the development of three-dimensional general circulation models (GCMs) and coupled atmosphere-ocean models for simulating Earth’s climate system, although some research efforts may include the use and development of two-dimensional energy balance models (EBMs), and one-dimensional radiative-convective models (RCMs). Primary emphasis in the use of the GCMs is placed on investigation of climate sensitivity, including the climate system’s response to such forcings as solar variability, anthropogenic and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, etc.

    The oft-quoted 2C-4.5C range of sensitivity is not a model assumption. It is a research result derived from the physics used to program the models.

  135. Barbara says:

    Now I get it. This is straight from Denial Depot’s website. (thanks, dhogaza)This explains everything deniers believe (is this for REAL? surely it’s satire?):

    “We are not afraid to be called climate “deniers”. In fact we embrace it as medal of honor bestowed on us by our alarmist foes. Galileo was a Denier. It is not an insult. I call this blog “Denier Depot” for that reason.

    Welcome to my climate science blog.

    I believe that one day all science will be done on blogs because we bloggers are natural skeptics, disbelieving the mainstream and accepting the possibility of any alternative idea.

    We stand unimpressed by “textbooks”, “peer review journals” and so-called “facts”. There are no facts, just informed ideas. We are infinitely small compared to nature and can’t grasp anything as certain as a fact.

    Nothing is settled and we should question everything. The debate is NOT over Gore! When so-called “experts” in their “peer reviewed journals” say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.”

  136. dhogaza says:

    parallel – serious question. Where did you acquire the misinformation that GCMs are programmed with an *assumption* that sensitivity to CO2 forcing is 2C-4.5C per doubling of CO2, rather than a result computed by the models?

  137. dhogaza says:

    Even the IPCC wrote that global warming could be greater or less than they showed, but it is a little late to find that qualifier on page 797.

    And uhh … parallel … hate to be pedantic but the fact that projected warming is a *range* of numbers is an immediate and obvious consequence of the fact that sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 is a bounded by a relatively large range (2C-4.5C).

    No one’s trying to hide anything.

  138. Jeff Green says:

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

    “[edit] Essentials
    CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2 (or any other change in Earth’s radiative balance), and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and negative. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback.”[1]”

    For a conversation with the open skeptics if you will notice that 1 degree centigrade from co2 alone and then there is mostly positive feedback loops producing the controversail increase. But it is there and it is coming. Polar amplification is on us now predicited by Hansen in 1988. Hansen did this with computer models and the models are better now. I find the .4 to .5 degree centigrade climate sensitivity way below the consensus point of view in science.

  139. Jeff Green says:

    If you look at the notes at the bottom of Wikipedia article you will notice that it is referneced to:

    ^ a b c Rahmstorf, Stefan (2008), “Anthropogenic Climate Change: Revisiting the Facts”, in Zedillo, E. (PDF), Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, Brookings Institution Press, pp. 34-53, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf

  140. Bart van Deenen says:

    Dhogaza writes: No, such drivel isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.
    Come back when you’ve proven that CO2 doesn’t absorb LW IR.

    Considering the fact that the outcome CO2 increases depends crucially on the amplification factor that climate processes apply to the primary increase in CO2 caused absorption, your statement shows you

    1) don’t know what you’re talking about
    2) prefer to respond ad hominem, with snide remarks like ‘drivel’
    3) and finally that you’ve completely lost the argument.

    Adios

  141. parallel says:

    p.s. dhogaza, You seem confused between the predicted temperature rise and the forcing used in the models. If this variable is simply the result of a calculation, which is correct 2 or 5?

    Those interested in forcing might follow the link here for an elementary explanation. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

  142. dhogaza says:

    p.s. dhogaza, You seem confused between the predicted temperature rise and the forcing used in the models. If this variable is simply the result of a calculation, which is correct 2 or 5?

    The currently accepted range is 2C-4.5C per doubling CO2, with more confidence in its being 3C or more, than less.

    Why different numbers? Because not all of the feedbacks are tightly bounded – there’s more to learn, as any climate scientist will tell you. Must of the uncertainty lies in cloud feedbacks, as any climate scientist will tell you.

    This is what is meant by “Primary emphasis in the use of the GCMs is placed on investigation of climate sensitivity, including the climate system’s response to such forcings as solar variability, anthropogenic and natural emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, etc”.

    If the positive feedback due to clouds (for instance) is in the high end of the range, how does this effect sensitivity to a doubling of CO2? If it’s in the low end?

    Same with things like solar variability (but these other things are much, much more tightly bounded than the cloud feedback, AFAIK – others feel free to chip in and educate me further).

    This exploration, not only with one model, but with a variety of GCMs developed at NASA, the Hadley people, etc, yields outputs which when combined give us that range of 2C-4.5C per doubling of CO2.

    As you can see, this range is most assuredly NOT “an assumption built into the models”. The models would be useless if it were true, because determining sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is the most important research question they’re designed to provide insight into.

  143. dhogaza says:

    Considering the fact that the outcome CO2 increases depends crucially on the amplification factor that climate processes apply to the primary increase in CO2 caused absorption, your statement shows you

    1) don’t know what you’re talking about
    2) prefer to respond ad hominem, with snide remarks like ‘drivel’
    3) and finally that you’ve completely lost the argument.

    Adios

    You remind me of George Foster telling Ali, “I’ve got you right where I want you, on the ropes!”

  144. Dean says:

    Please regular posters here, please do not ask deniers to prove their case here, or argue with them about their nonsense. It only encourages them. Whether or not you 100% agree with Joe Romm, and I don’t 100% agree with him, this is a generally functional forum for discussing those disagreements. Deniers have swamped many blogs, and not just those whose owners they agree with either. This is probably why RC edits posts to it.

    So if somebody says that there is just no evidence for AGW, please don’t ask them why they think so. Or go to WUWT and ask them there. There does need to be wide-open forums for people who want to discuss the issue in that way – and there are plenty. But it becomes pointless for other uses. Of course deniers will just scream censorship, but we’ve all seen the exact same argument again and again and again and again, and again, after it’s been positively disproven. I just saw somebody on CNN claim that climatologists were predicting an ice age in the 1970’s. Yada, yada. I hope that Joe keeps this forum useful.

  145. dhogaza says:

    Those interested in forcing might follow the link here for an elementary explanation. http://www.drroyspencer.com/ research-articles/ satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

    Thank you for your source, parallel. Unfortunately, Spencer in no way claims that sensitivity to CO2 of 2C-4.5C per doubling of CO2 is a built-in assumption of the models.

    Rather, he is claiming that the model output of that range is wrong because he believes that the cloud feedback is negative rather than positive.

    A short quote from your source that makes the point:

    Feedbacks are not explicitly input into climate models. They are instead the net result of all the different physical processes contained in the models…

    Since climate sensitivity per doubling is computed from the various forcings and feedbacks, and since feedbacks “are not explicitly input into climate models”, it is clear that Spencer understands that climate sensitivity per doubling is not an *assumption* programmed into the GCMs as you previously claimed.

    Now, what was that you said about your understanding how GCMs work, while I don’t?

    Are you going to claim that your source – Spencer – doesn’t understand how they work, too?

    Why do denialists so consistently quote sources that don’t support their claims?

    (BTW Spencer has had no luck in convincing atmospheric physicists that cloud feedbacks will net out negative rather than positive).

  146. dhogaza says:

    I hope that Joe keeps this forum useful.

    I’d be all for Joe deleting the crap – or closing the threads.

    But if he’s going to let the WUWTers flood the forum, it seems that exposing their ignorance needs doing.

    Besides, despite Watts’ claims, he routinely deletes posts that make similar points over in his blog.

  147. dhogaza says:

    If this variable is simply the result of a calculation, which is correct 2 or 5?

    This is rather odd, actually. If computations can’t yield a range of values, then statistics doesn’t exist.

    I’m rather sure it does.

  148. Dano says:

    Please regular posters here, please do not ask deniers to prove their case here, or argue with them about their nonsense. It only encourages them.

    Exactly. Hellll-ooo.

    And it is a waste of everyone’s time, as you cannot convince a denialist. Their refusal to apprehend reality is psychological, not rational.

    Best,

    D

  149. parallel says:

    dhogaza,
    You seem unable to grasp that I was writing about the forcing factor used in models and keep bringing up the temperatures projected by the models. The model derived temperatures depend on the forcing factor used, as well as other things.

    In your initial response (WTF? I think you mean 2C-5C per doubling of CO2) it was clear you hadn’t heard of forcing and did not know how critical its value was to the model results. So there does not seem much point in asking for proof of something about which you know nothing.

  150. dhogaza says:

    In your initial response (WTF? I think you mean 2C-5C per doubling of CO2) it was clear you hadn’t heard of forcing and did not know how critical its value was to the model results.

    The word you want is *amplification* (of the basic forcing due to CO2 absorption LW IR) due to feedbacks, not *forcing*.

    Not my problem you use the wrong word.

    No. The amplification due to feedbacks is not an “assumption programmed in to the models”, either.

    Spencer’s quote applies there, as well.

  151. dhogaza says:

    In your initial response (WTF? I think you mean 2C-5C per doubling of CO2) it was clear you hadn’t heard of forcing amplification due to feedbacks and did not know how critical its value was to the model results.

    There, that I can understand. Do you?

    Do you see that Spencer’s quote – “feedbacks are not explicitly programmed into the models” – makes your original claim false even when the proper terminology is used?

    Regarding amplification being the proper word to use, again from your link to Spencer:

    It is well known that most of that warming is NOT due to the direct warming effect of the CO2 by itself, which is relatively weak. It is instead due to indirect effects (positive feedbacks) that amplify the small amount of direct warming from the CO2.

  152. dhogaza says:

    In case it’s not entirely clear to you, of course i knew about amplification, I “WTF?’d” to your first post because your use of the word “forcing” was incorrect, so I had to guess what you were trying to say. 2-5 is very close to the estimated 2C-4.5C range of expected rise per doubling of CO2, so I *guessed* that this was what you meant when you misused the word “forcing”.

  153. dhogaza says:

    And it is a waste of everyone’s time, as you cannot convince a denialist. Their refusal to apprehend reality is psychological, not rational.

    I guess I have hope that parallel may be experiencing a teachable moment…

  154. hunter says:

    Brewster,
    I have, in fact read the links.
    And you and dhogaza are gifts that keep on giving.
    Please do continue.

  155. dhogaza says:

    And you and dhogaza are gifts that keep on giving.

    Care to specifically point out where Roy Spencer and I are wrong about feedback amplification not being an *assumption* programmed into GCMs?

    Or do you think clever comments like yours are convincing to lurkers?

  156. Hoi Polloi says:

    Prof.Doctor dhogaza, again I’m asking you, instead of using Watt’s website as straw man, please be so kind to entertain us with your arguments against “gone emeritus” Roger Pielke Sr. article (http://climatesci.org). This time without your usual red herrings and ad hominem attacks. Just plain scientific arguments, if you please.

    I’ve skimmed through this thread, but I don’t see nothing, nada, zilch, nichts, which refers to Dr.Pielke’s article, which I may say, is not a surprise. But maybe you can be the first one?

  157. Phillip Huggan says:

    I wish the limit of whatever harm this blog permits on deniers.

  158. dhogaza says:

    Prof.Doctor dhogaza, again I’m asking you, instead of using Watt’s website as straw man,

    Just “dhogaza”. I’m not using Watts website as a strawman, just pointing out that anyone with even a smidgen of technical training who treats it as a serious source of information on climate science has a few screws loose.

    As far as his argumentation, I’ve mentioned either here or in the other WUWT-polluted thread that Pielke Sr’s argument that “ocean hasn’t warmed since 2003″ is significant, when made by a professor in science who by definition has received some training in statistics (in order to get his PhD), is dishonest. He knows there’s no statistical significance to it, and that this excursion from the long-term trend is not unusual in the record.

    He also is undoubtably aware that the “cooling” his claim isn’t accepted as being an iron-tight observation due to various problems with instrumentation.

  159. Dean says:

    Regarding Climatesci and Pielke Sr, interestingly, for the first time in a long time, he has turned comments on. Some of them provide a good synopsis of this issue. He is advocating for a different measure of warming, but it is not a metric that is – as of yet – widely accepted. Maybe in time it will be, maybe it won’t. But he seems to treat it as a foregone conclusion that measuring oceanic heat is a better metric than surface temperature.

    I monitor his blog and see this a lot. He will publish something, and treat his conclusion as established and accepted, whether or not it is. I’m not saying his claims are false, just that they are in dispute. He does this and then follows up by claiming that Joe Romm is unscientific for not accepting Pielke Sr’s claims as established.

  160. David B. Benson says:

    Still at it, I see.

  161. dhogaza says:

    Dean:

    Regarding Climatesci and Pielke Sr, interestingly, for the first time in a long time, he has turned comments on. Some of them provide a good synopsis of this issue.

    Where? I looked. They’re off. Did he turn them on for one particular article then turn them off again? Do you have a link to this article where he had them turned on (not doubting you, want to read the exchange between him and those answering him).

  162. Michael says:

    Bit nippy outside, could do with a bit of man made climate change to be honest.

    Should I go and kill some wood and stack up the fireplace?

  163. Another Phil says:

    Barbara, thanks for mentioning our modest efforts over at Denial Depot.

    http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

    I assure you that we are for real, and we are dedicating ourselves to researching and publicising the fantastic new phenomenon of Blog Science (We normally abbreviate to BS). Recently we have been extolling the work of such BS visionaries as Zbigniew Jaworowski, Christopher Booker and of course, Christopher Monckton.

    We have also pioneered the concept of Blog qualifications, parallel academic honours awarded by the blogosphere for services to BS. A measure of our seriousness can be obtained from the fact that we intend to award an honourary Blog Doctorate [Prunus emarginata adlego, Rectus Hominus Emeritus] to Steve Goddard.

    regards

    Phil.

  164. Another Phil says:

    Here’s an example of the moderation policy at WUWT in action, this was my last post over there ….

    ME: Either Prof Lindzen is unaware of the correction, which I find impossibly unlikely, or he has knowingly circulated incorrect information to support his case, an act that one might normally expect would attract severe opprobrium from the posters of an objective science blog such as this. Neither possibility does much for the pursuasiveness of his argument, in my view. Certainly if the Professor were to submit this article for publication, it would be rejected on these grounds alone.

    REPLY: There is a third option, perhapss he doesn’t trust the “correction”. I know that many of us here don’t trust “corrections” applied to data.

    ME: The correction was largely the result of step in the computer code that caters for satellite altitude being effectively ’switched off’. Details were published in the Journal of Climate and also by the Data Product provider. All other researchers who use this dataset use the revised version. The onus is therefore on anyone citing the 2002 version to at least mention that the originators of the dataset have revised it and explain why they prefer the ‘uncorrected’ dataset, especially if the corrected version removes a central plank of their argument. From Prof Lindzen, not even a footnote. Does this qualify as the good and transparent science quite rightly promoted by WUWT?

    REPLY: John I have deleted your response, and I resent the smear you made against me for publishing this informal essay from Dr. Lindzen. You get a 24 hour timeout. If you wish to continue, lose the ad homs. Otherwise off to the troll bin permanently for you. – Anthony

    Draw your own conclusions.

  165. dhogaza says:

    Draw your own conclusions.

    I don’t trust data corrections either – for instance when Anthony edits his posts to remove embarrassing material. Or deleted data, for that matter, as when Anthony deletes his posts that prove to be so embarrassing as to be unsalvagable, or when he deletes a perfectly reasonable post like yours.

    Or like the one which he deleted and used to announce my banning.

  166. Brewster says:

    hunter;

    “Brewster,
    I have, in fact read the links.
    And you and dhogaza are gifts that keep on giving.
    Please do continue.”

    And please continue to read – I keep hoping maybe eventually something will sink in, although that hope is based on no real facts at all – much like WUWT.

  167. dhogaza says:

    Barbara, yes, Denial Depot is satire, though it managed to fool some smart people (Eli Rabbett, you know who you are!) …

  168. hunter says:

    Brewster,
    The ice in the Arctic is not following your lead.
    I know the difference between models projections and data. Do you?

  169. dhogaza says:

    The ice in the Arctic is not following your lead.

    Almost down to the 2007 level.

    JAXA shows the same.

    Ice in the Arctic is following the long-term accelerated trend.

    Why lie, when the net provides us the tools to prove you’re lying?

  170. Leland Palmer says:

    One of the best indications that real warming is occurring is that sea levels are rising.

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

    If warming is not occurring, and all this climate change stuff is just the grandest hoax of all time, why are sea levels rising?

    Is there really any other explanation for sea level rise other than a rise in average global temperatures?

    Is this also due to the infamous urban heat island effect?

  171. SH says:

    dhogaza – why are you so angry – all the time? You are scarcely advancing your cause, or your own credibility.

  172. Leland Palmer says:

    why are you so angry – all the time? You are scarcely advancing your cause, or your own credibility.

    This is Leland Palmer, not dhogaza.

    If dhogaza is angry, he is not alone. Many of us are somewhat angry, and are at least hugely frustrated, at what we see as the unreasonable stubbornness of the denialists.

    If you look at my posts, above, it seems apparent that there is a great deal of coordination to this denialist network, and many of us strongly suspect that the money and coordination for this effort ultimately goes back to financial elites that have hugely profited from fossil fuels for over a century now. Senator Inhofe, who has accepted a lot of money from fossil fuel companies, seems to be a part of this network.

    Many of us are convinced that many of the professional denialists are like lawyers- they are paid to argue.

    Other denialists are victims of this paid network, and it is hard to be patient with a dupe of a paid propaganda network, who stubbornly advocates policies that many of us believe endanger the future of all life on earth.

    Still, we’re not as angry as we should be. Most of us are more scared and depressed than we are angry, IMO.

    I’ve been wondering lately about the Fermi Paradox, of all things.

    The Fermi Paradox is the question asked by the late scientist Enrico Fermi, a man instrumental in the development of atomic energy. This pops right up on Wikipedia, of course.

    The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

    The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common.[1] In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes are not seen. A more detailed examination of the implications of the topic began with a paper by Michael H. Hart in 1975, and it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart paradox.[2] Another closely related question is the Great Silence[3]—even if travel is hard, if life is common, why don’t we detect their radio transmissions?

    I’ve been wondering if the answer to the “where are they?” question posed by the Fermi Paradox is that planets are booby trapped.

    We appear to be living on an unsafe planet. Is this also true of other planets?

    If Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis is correct, and it has become the standard model, the Earth’s climate is held stable far from a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by feedback from life itself. The Earth’s climate is actively maintained in a local energy minimum by life itself, far from the overall thermodynamic minimum. The overall thermodynamic minimum, as Lovelock pointed out, would resemble the surface of Venus.

    Free oxygen in an atmosphere is certainly a thermodynamic anomaly, for example. Oxygen is a hugely corrosive, reactive gas, and in the absence of life itself, one would expect that all the oxygen would be bound up in lower energy compounds like CO2 or metal oxides or carbonates. The presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere, so much a necessity for our lives, is a huge anomaly, potentially detectable at huge distances by spectroscopy, Lovelock pointed out to NASA.

    If the Earth is an unsafe planet, and this appears to be the case, are all other planets also unsafe because intelligent life is likely to develop in a situation that is delicately maintained far from equilibrium by life itself?

    Perhaps this is why we look out into the universe and see no evidence of other life.

    Perhaps it’s because intelligent life tends to disrupt the living systems that maintain its own existence, here as well as out in the universe.

    So, we’re frustrated, many of us.

    It’s very much like preventing the disruption of our living biosphere by greed and stupidity is an intelligence test, and we’re failing it as a species.

  173. John says:

    LOOK’S LIKE CLIMATE PROGRESS SPOKE TOO SOON!!!!

  174. dhogaza says:

    You might look at the slope, there, 2009 ice extent is diving.

    NSIDC shows current 2009 ice extent is now down to the 2007 level.

    Until yesterday, JAXA was Stephen Goddard’s favorite arctic sea ice extent.

    Apparently he’s not so fond of it because it, too, shows current 2009 ice extent down to the 2007 level. And it doesn’t use the same satellite as NSIDC.

    So two out of three show ice extent the same as in the record 2007 year, at this point. While the third, that you cherry-picked, shows it a bit higher but plunging rapidly, and no longer in the two standard deviations from average that had Goddard creaming his pants a month ago.

  175. dhogaza says:

    dhogaza – why are you so angry – all the time? You are scarcely advancing your cause, or your own credibility.

    The physical state of planet earth, and the science which gives our best explanations for happenings on earth, do not depend on my mood or personality.

  176. dhogaza says:

    dhogaza – why are you so angry – all the time? You are scarcely advancing your cause, or your own credibility.

    As to anger, *everyone* should be angry at those who use lies to attempt to forestall action to minimize AGW.

    The future well-being of my nephews and nieces are at stake (I have no children).

  177. Chris Winter says:

    SH wrote: “dhogaza – why are you so angry – all the time? You are scarcely advancing your cause, or your own credibility.”

    What Leland Palmer said.

    I’m not dhogaza either, but I’m sure he is angry for the same reason I am angry. We encounter the same nonsensical statements again and again. Sometimes they even come from the same people to whom we’ve already explained why they are nonsensical. Other times the statements are just plainly absurd.

    I’ll give you an example I see repeated: It’s the claim that the models predicting x degrees of temperature rise by 2100 are wrong because that rise hasn’t happened yet. This claim is so absurd that it shouldn’t arise even one time. (Do I really need to explain why?) Yet it crops up again and again.

    Sure, keeping our posts calm would be better. But I haven’t seen the Dalai Lama posting here. Everyone else has a limit to their patience. I certainly do — especially when it appears that the nonsense is a deliberate ploy to confuse the issue, when the stakes are so high.

  178. Chris Winter says:

    John chortled: “LOOK’S LIKE CLIMATE PROGRESS SPOKE TOO SOON!!!!”

    Still under the long-term average, John.
    But by all means, feel free to chortle on.

  179. John says:

    Chris:

    I’m not the on who said “DEATH SPIRAL” ………..when he was wrong! An average is an average!

  180. Brewster says:

    Chris, John’s post is absolutely stunning…

    How can you look at ANY of the graphs referenced, and not see ice levels are nearly at an all-time low, and decreasing faster than ever?

    It takes a level of denialiam that is beyond my ability to comprehend…

  181. John says:

    Brewster:

    The ice melts every year….that is not deniliam…..it just is…..I call it common sense…take that!

  182. dhogaza says:

    The ice melts every year….that is not deniliam…..it just is…..I call it common sense…take that!

    Behold the intellect that has overturned the work of thousands of scientists.

  183. John says:

    dhogaza:

    It took scientist to figure that out!

    Come on you can do better!

  184. Chris Winter says:

    John burbled: “An average is an average!”

    Yes, and the red trace for 2009 is under the average, indicating a smaller ice extent.

    Also, the 2009 trace appears to be descending faster this month than those for 2007 and 2008 did.

  185. Brad says:

    Hi, I’m Brad. (Hi Brad!) And I’m not Dhogaza either.

    I’m angry. And I’m way beyond caring about the sensitive feelings of denialists.

    I’ve been reading about AGW for nearly 10 years. I’ve had to endure and discuss the most idiotic of denier arguments. My top three:

    1. Climate models are junk because they incorporate wild feedbacks, and besides, they leave out water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas.

    2. We can’t know the real temperature of the earth, and besides, Mars is warming so it must be the sun.

    3. Because, in the past, temperatures began to increase before CO2, increases in CO2 today can’t possible raise the temperature.

    (If you don’t understand why the above statements are so far off they “aren’t even wrong.” I urge you to do some serious study of the subject)

    I’ve been patient. I’ve been polite. But it’s been one stupid “refutation” of AGW after another for years. Repetition of the same old refuted arguments time and time again. Enough’s enough.

    I think “denier” is an appropriate term because they use exactly the same deceptive argument techniques as do the evolution deniers, the HIV deniers, the moon landing deniers, and, yes, the holocaust deniers.

    The denier’s main weapon is to attack and attempt to destroy the personal and professional reputations of anyone who disagrees with them. (e.g., Gore, Hansen, Mann). So it’s pretty disingenuous of them to whine about someone slapping a label on them. (As Mr. Watts says, “be a man.”

    So, yeah, I’m angry. Remember the movie Network? That kind of angry. It’s an appropriate response to ignorance that threatens humanity.

  186. John says:

    Burble on:

    Thanks Chris…….I appreciate your honesty…..maybe we are not in a death spiral after all.

  187. dhogaza says:

    The denier’s main weapon is to attack and attempt to destroy the personal and professional reputations of anyone who disagrees with them. (e.g., Gore, Hansen, Mann)

    Dude, face it, Gore is fat, therefore the globe is cooling!

  188. dhogaza says:

    Thanks Chris…….I appreciate your honesty…..maybe we are not in a death spiral after all.

    Chris’s post went right over your head, apparently.

  189. John says:

    HOG:

    Poor hoga, are you still angry…..

  190. Brewster says:

    Man, it sure looks like that Arctic ice is disappearing rapidly!

    I just looked at the updated chart that JR posted two days ago, and in those two days the 2009 line seems to have dropped to almost equal 2007 levels!

    (Maybe JR’s was a few days older.)

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

    [JR: It was June 3 data.]

  191. dhogaza says:

    Yes, and JAXA matches, which is why they’re focused on the NORDEN product over at WUWT, as so proudly parroted by John.

  192. Gary says:

    Can’t even type…. laughing too much..

  193. Gary says:

    What incredible hubris from the AGW Clergy.

    It’s sooooo frustrating when they won’t believe what I tell them!!!!

    It’s doctrine!!!! Damn it.
    They are not allowed to disagree.

    Heresy I say. Pure Heresy. They should be lashed.

    LOLOL

  194. Gary says:

    Oh Crap.
    laughing causes more CO2 doesn’t it.

    Got to stop laughing or we are all doomed.

    Choke!

  195. John says:

    A Quote from NISDC:

    “May 2009 compared to past Mays

    Compared to previous Mays, ice extent in May 2009 is about average. Over the last four years, May ice extent has increased. The long-term trend nevertheless indicates a decline of 2.5% per decade, an average of 34,000 square kilometers (13,000 square miles) of ice per year.”

    HOGA: Since you call me a denilist, I will call you an EXTREMIST AGWer.

    2.5% per decade is not a death spiral. Do you see the diff???

  196. Gary says:

    AIIIIIEEEE!

    That made me fart!!! Methane is much worse.

    Sea levels must have just risen an inch.

    What to do what to do…..

  197. Gary says:

    John.
    Don’t expect to persuade true believers with mere facts.
    Facts just don’t cut it when a good religious doctrine is involved.

    If they are able to remain stedfastly uneffected by the overwhleming evidence against AGW and overwhelming concensus of scientists that don’t believe it, a few facts will simply be ignored.

    They will just call you a name, claim you fact has been debunked by Al Gore’s brother in law’s wife’s cousin and continue smille smuggly and …………. Believe.

    You see they have faith…..

  198. John says:

    Gary,

    Reminds me of a song…..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSvHpvHFXU0

  199. Gary says:

    John;

    Good one. I like it.

  200. Brewster says:

    Great idea, John!

    If you don’t like June’s data, stick with May….

  201. John says:

    Brewster, May was 8 days ago, we are still not in a death spiral!

  202. dhogaza says:

    2.5% per decade is not a death spiral. Do you see the diff???

    May is not September. Do you see the diff???

    May is also not a good predictor of the September minimum. Do you see the irrelevancy of your so-called point?

  203. dhogaza says:

    This graph from JAXA should make clear why May extent is not a good predictor for the summer minimum.

    As you can see, though, by mid-july, the “winners” separate themselves from the pack.

    Will 2009 be down in the 2007-2009 range? No idea. What I do know, though, is the “april and may was almost average, ice has recovered” is one of the stupidest themes put forward by WUWT in the last month.

  204. hapa says:

    somebody please stop buying john and gary beers, they’re getting depressing and last time they stiffed me for the taxi ride home

  205. John says:

    HOG,

    Dam’it, you finally got it! I was starting to wonder about you. So we are not in a death spiral! NOT! NOT! Because you don’t know what will happen in September!

    Mother Nature does not play by your rules. She has and alway will be the one in charge whether you like it or not.

    Thanks for making my point!!!!!

  206. parallel says:

    Possibly no one is still interested in the lack of understanding about how clouds effect the climate I brought up earlier. Not to mention how the sun effects cloud cover. Anyway, Kirkby gives an interesting lecture at CERN, although as he talks about “forcing,” dhogaza may give it a miss. It seems he is intent on measuring the effect rather than just shouting about it.

    See http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

    Some may have difficulty seeing the video, in which case try Windows Media to see it.

  207. John says:

    HAPA,

    Pop some prozac, I am sure you will feel better.

  208. David B. Benson says:

    Words fail me …

    :-(

  209. Brewster says:

    And if we DO set a record low in September, we still don’t know what’s going to happen next September, or the one after that, right John?

    Denial at its best…

  210. dhogaza says:

    parallel … yes, spencer believes that clouds are the forcing causing warming while CO2 concentrations are always a feedback (despite our spewing tons of CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere).

    YOUR CLAIM, however, was that such was AN ASSUMPTION PROGRAMMED INTO THE GCMs. No. Mainstream scientists think spencer’s a crank, his notion that clouds, not CO2, cause warming have been rejected, and therefore modelers IGNORE HIM.

    Likewise, GCR forcing as described by the paper you reference is at best speculation, though the CLOUD experiment may shed some light on whether or not there’s anything to the speculation.

    This speculation is IGNORNED by modelers (and, frankly, mainstream science) thus are not ASSUMPTIONS PROGRAMMED INTO THE MODELS.

    The only forcings programmed into the models are empirically obtained, i.e. the direct CO2 forcing, solar forcing (input into the system), etc. These aren’t ASSUMPTIONS they are OBSERVATIONS.

    Please crawl back into your parallel universe where, just possibly, your assertions might be true. They aren’t in ours.

  211. dhogaza says:

    No one disputes the small amount of warming directly caused by CO2 but the climate models assume that there is an unproven positive forcing factor of 2 – 5 depending on the model.

    This statement, in other words, is simply false.

  212. Patti says:

    (Paraphrasing with obvious intent dramatized)Anti-science conservatives, anti-science conservatives, anti-science conservatives, anti-science conservatives, anti-science conservatives. “Look if I say it often enough, maybe the label will stick and NBC will use it during their newscasts.” — Tom Friedman, New York Times

  213. hapa says:

    Pop some prozac, I am sure you will feel better.

    that’s just like you. avoiding the problem. i don’t even know why i ever wanted to go out with you.

  214. dhogaza says:

    (Paraphrasing with obvious intent dramatized)

    Anti-science conservatives, – patti, check
    anti-science conservatives, – parallel, check
    anti-science conservatives, – anthony, check
    anti-science conservatives, – john, check
    anti-science conservatives. – gary, check

    Friedman needs to say it a few more times, doesn’t he?

  215. John says:

    HAPA,

    You tease me!

    But I like that….

  216. parallel says:

    For the various posters who made sarcastic comments about wattsupwiththat.com reports on official surface measurement stations, have a look at this: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6219

    I don’t suppose the AGW believers will consider the temperature jump significant as it is going the wrong way for them. Just “noise” I suppose.

    As dhogaza put it. “Photo documentation correlates with measurable changes in *trend* reported by each station. This requires *measurements* and *analysis*, which he has not done.”

    I would have thought measurement a tad difficult until USHCN is embarrassed into correcting them, one at a time.

  217. dhogaza says:

    For the various posters who made sarcastic comments about wattsupwiththat.com reports on official surface measurement stations, have a look at this: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6219

    Sigh … in that post Watts isn’t addressing the GISS algorithm that compensates for problems of that kind.

    That is what Watts et al have to prove doesn’t work. That the trend differs from the GISS product, not that various individual stations have various problems.

    JohnV did the analysis with the stations that met siting guidelines when Watts had inventoried about 40% of them, and showed that the trend using just those stations matches the GISS-computed trend almost perfectly.

    In other words – no problem.

    Watts has rejected that analysis, has done no analysis of his own, and now that he’s surveyed 70% of the stations (a number picked from thin air, the 40% sample JohnV worked with was statistically sufficient), he simply states “see, GISS is wrong!”.

    Uh, no, now he actually has *two* targets he must prove wrong: GISS and JohnV.

    And to do that he must analyze, not photograph.

  218. dhogaza says:

    I imagine parallel is unaware that professionals have sliced and diced the data various ways to test the robustness of the GISS product, long before Watts figured out which end of a camera to point at the subject.

    The GISS product has held up to all such analyses.

  219. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi parallel-

    I’ve been watching the CERN video, and I think that there may be something to it. I’ve thought so, about the solar activity / cosmic ray modulation hypothesis for a long time, ever since I read a book called “Sun, Weather, and Climate” put out by NASA back in the 1970’s I think.

    So, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was something to the solar activity / cosmic ray climate connection. What is missing is a physical mechanism that can connect cloud physics with solar activity, perhaps via solar magnetic modulation of galactic cosmic ray flux. Such a mechanism may indeed exist, this is an extremely difficult problem to construct a meaningful experiment on, because high energy particles are needed, and because the walls of any chamber absorb ions produced by the high energy particles.

    But counting on such a connection to save us assumes that solar activity will be at a minimum in the future, similar to the Maunder sunspot minimum that was associated with the “little ice age” in Europe a few centuries ago, as outlined in the video.

    We are currently at a sunspot minimum, for the past couple of years, and a cosmic ray maximum. That may in fact be masking some of the effects of the CO2 caused climate forcing, similar to our production of sulfate aerosols, I think.

    Sooner or later, though, the solar activity will almost certainly go up again, as it has every 11 or so years for the past several hundred years.

    If that happens when we have increased CO2 levels to 450 or more ppm, this could in fact be catastrophic, IMO.

    The sun/climate connection, if it exists, may in fact just mask CO2 forcing during years of low solar magnetic activity, and so “set us up for the big one” when solar magnetic activity increases, most likely reaching its peak about 5 years from now, unless we’re really, really lucky.

    Solar magnetic activity is unpredictable. Counting on it to save us is taking a huge risk.

  220. parallel says:

    Leland Palmer,
    The measurement/theory/proof are not easy problems, but I’m glad someone is trying to sort it out.

    I think the poor quality temperature record is a larger problem right now, with people looking for just a fraction of a degree change with measurement errors of several degrees in some cases. Same is true with temperature proxies like bristlecones for longer time periods.

    It is hard to imagine that the government will do much to change the equation, except to use it as an excuse to raise taxes that will be spent on something else. I think the most useful thing to do would be to build a lot of nuclear power stations (Modular Pebble Bed or Liquid Thorium Salt reactors) and convert heating and transport to electric power.

    Keep in mind that history shows the earth to be much colder most of the time and that would be even worse than +2C. Also, that the GCM projections are so far off they are close to being falsified, so the problem is a long way from being understood.

  221. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi parallel-

    In terms of effectiveness, I advocate nationalization of the coal fired power plants, and converting them to operation on compressed charcoal pellets, while simultaneously capturing their CO2 and deep injecting it. This “carbon negative” strategy is the most radical strategy and the most effective strategy proposed so far, IMO, and is what I think we have to do to avoid a methane catastrophe.

    As the CERN video points out, though, the sun/climate connection, if it exists, seems to be breaking down or decoupling due to rising greenhouse gas levels. We are increasing CO2 levels on the order of 10000 times the rate of natural processes, and this is truly unprecedented.

    What really worries me is the possibility of a methane catastrophe:

    http://www.killerinourmidst.com

    These methane catastrophes have happened just a few times, in Earth’s history, and have resulted in widespread extinctions apparently due to runaway positive feedback driven global warming. One such catastrophe appears to be the Permain/Triassic mass extinction, and it killed something like 95 percent of all the species then living.

    Even if the sun/climate connection hypothesis is correct, it could still be overpowered by a methane catastrophe, as apparently happened during the Permian/Triassic extinction event. This event was so huge, it caused a huge runaway spike in temperature, anoxic oceans, large amounts of hydrogen sulfide produced by the anoxic oceans, and the extinction of 95 percent of species on the Earth – and it happened apparently slowly compared to our current increases of one percent per year of CO2.

    If the Earth’s climate is a self regulating system, similar to an economy in its feedback effects, complete with bubbles and crashes, we do need to be afraid of the crashes, IMO.

    What would happen to our economy if we changed one of the basic inputs to our economy 10000 times as fast as it was adapted to dealing with?

  222. dhogaza says:

    The sun/climate connection, if it exists, may in fact just mask CO2 forcing during years of low solar magnetic activity, and so “set us up for the big one” when solar magnetic activity increases, most likely reaching its peak about 5 years from now, unless we’re really, really lucky.

    A generalization which has been pointed out elsewhere before – this argues for CO2 sensitivity at the higher end of the 1.5C-4C range, not lower. It’s not clear why deniers embrace this so enthusiastically since it doesn’t actually bolster the lower-sensitivity argument.

  223. parallel says:

    L.P.

    I read that method of converting coal powered power stations would >double the cost of electricity. A much cheaper method (that has also been proposed) is to convert them with Pebble Bed Reactors.

    I know about the potential hydrate problem. There are quite a few disaster possibilities out there, the most likely being wars and mega inflation.

    I don’t find the evidence of rapid warming due to CO2 is strong enough yet to justify panic measures. Just as well, as we have little control over India & China who will greatly add to the amount of CO2

  224. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi parallel-

    I read that method of converting coal powered power stations would >double the cost of electricity. A much cheaper method (that has also been proposed) is to convert them with Pebble Bed Reactors.

    Well, we swim in a sea of commercially motivated information and misinformation. Industry supported “astroturf” propaganda groups are actually quite common.

    What the coal industry does not tell us is that most coal plants are hugely inefficient technological fossils, which with a little tweaking using technologies like oxyfuel combustion and a topping cycle, could pay for their own CCS.

    Carbon negative strategies could be really hugely effective, because they actually put carbon back into the ground at the same time that they generate electricity, which itself displaces fossil fuel generated electricity. So, you get huge synergies with carbon negative energy ideas:

    http://www.etsap.org/worksh_6_2003/2003P_read.pdf

    Abrupt Climate Change (ACC – NAS, 2001) is an issue that ‘haunts the climate change problem’
    (IPCC, 2001) but has been neglected by policy makers up to now, maybe for want of practicable
    measures for effective response, save for risky geo-engineering. A portfolio of Bio-Energy with
    Carbon Storage (BECS) technologies, yielding negative emissions energy, may be seen as benign, low
    risk, geo-engineering that is the key to being prepared for ACC. The nature of sequential decisions,
    taken in response to the evolution of currently unknown events, is discussed. The impact of such
    decisions on land use change is related to a specific bio-energy conversion technology. The effects
    of a precautionary strategy, possibly leading to eventual land use change on a large scale, is modeled,
    using FLAMES. Under strong assumptions appropriate to imminent ACC, pre-industrial CO2
    levels can be restored by mid-century using BECS.

    Industry advocacy of nuclear energy is also commercially motivated, IMO. Pebble bed reactors might make some sense in some cases, I think, for coal plants located far from biomass sources, in areas of low solar energy, not on natural biomass river transport networks, not sited above areas of hot dry rock for engineered geothermal, and so on.

    We swim in a sea of disinformation. One of the things I like about Energy Secretary Chu is that he seems to be able to cut through some of this.

  225. parallel says:

    L.P.

    I’m an engineer with many years experience in the design, build, operation & economics of furnaces. Oxygen addition has its own set of problems and is not the panacea some suggest. Most power stations are not sited close to suitable ground storage for CO2.

    I’m not advocating nuclear power for any possible personal gain, but because they make by far the best economic sense.

    The subject is too far off topic for discussion in this thread.

  226. dhogaza says:

    The subject is too far off topic for discussion in this thread.

    What’s wrong? Have you also run out of pseudo-science arguments against the topic of this thread, too?

  227. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi parallel-

    OK, we’ll discuss CCS another time, no problem.

    About the urgency of the problem, and whether this is a crisis or not, though, I really think this is a crisis.

    In California last year we had 1.2 million acres burn, and I recall a study published in Science in 2005 that found a sixfold increase in wildfires with only a one degree C rise in temperature. The more wildfires, the more CO2, the more fires – a positive feedback loop. As an engineer, you are undoubtedly familiar with positive feedback. What concerns me are the number of positive feedback loops that are appearing.

    You might check out Chris Field on Democracy Now, February 26, 2009. Here’s a link and a few quotes from the transcript:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/26/member_of_un_environment_panel_warns

    CHRISTOPHER FIELD: Well, the important thing to remember is that we’re not committed to any particular trajectory and that there are a range of different possibilities. The possibility that is increasingly stark and that we really want to be increasingly certain to avoid is one where we end up with climate forcing at the high end of the possible scenarios. The IPCC projected that with the scenarios it explored, we could see 2100 temperatures that were anywhere from as little as two Fahrenheit to as much as eleven to twelve Fahrenheit warmer than possible.

    And what we increasingly see is that with temperatures at the upper end of this warming range, we begin to get a large series of very dangerous feedbacks from the earth’s system. In particular, we see tropical forest transitioning from taking up large amounts of carbon to taking up very little or even releasing carbon. And it looks like there’s an increasing risk that high latitude ecosystems that are characterized by these frozen soils called permafrost may release some of the organic matter that’s stored in this permafrost to the atmosphere. So you end up in a situation where, instead of having ecosystems storing large amounts of carbon, their storing very little or releasing large amounts.

    The calculations to date are that tropical forests—and this is something that is explored in the IPCC—could, at the higher ranges of temperature forcing, release anywhere from a hundred billion to 500 billion extra tons of carbon to the atmosphere by 2100. And that should be put in the context of understanding that during the entire period from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until now, all of the world societies have only released a little over 300 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere.

    What we’re worried about, parallel, as you know but apparently disagree with, is that we will pass a tipping point, and then it will become harder and harder to stop the sort of runaway global warming we saw in the Permain/Triassic mass extinction.

    The issue has been framed by those that favor going slow on climate change such that without proof that climate change is undoubtedly occurring and without proof that this possibility of runaway climate change will occur, we can take no substantive action.

    But as an engineer, I’m sure you know about risk, and that risks are commonly assessed by multiplying the probability of an event by the consequences of the event. In this case, the consequences are so extreme (possible extinction) that even a low probability of being correct should trigger drastic, emergency action, in my opinion.

  228. parallel says:

    L.P.

    I did reply to your post but it appears my post has been censored. So it seems that is the end of our discussion.

  229. Charles Higley says:

    Just because all kinds of countries, bigwigs, politicians, and scientific organizations have approved of the IPCC reports does not make the report any more valid. And, yes, they can all be accused of aiding and abetting fraud on a global level.

    As there is patently no defendable scientific evidence to support the hypothesis of manmade global warming and the IPCC’s mission is to show the effects of global warming whether it is happening or not, their reports are a forgone conclusion. They have to propound and push global warming – that is their mission. They have no interest in disproving or even looking closely at verifying warming or cooling. With cooling, they would cease to exist.

    Their basics assumptions for global warming are false and their temperature data from poorly maintained and urban heat island warmed sites are gleefully accepted and only tokenly “adjusted.” Their reports are jokes.

    Global climate models are critically flawed, not scientific, and represent programmers’ imaginations and, again, there are invalid assumptions included which render them incapable of predicting the past, present, or future.

    Add to this mix of false assumptions and conclusions ridiculously biased and misinterpreted anecdotal reports from the field and you have a perfect storm of junk science which is again gleefully accepted by the politicians as it supports their agenda to cripple the world economy while consolidating power and creating a one-world government.

    Anybody supporting or approving of a political body, like the IPCC, which pretends to be scientific IS GUILTY OF FRAUD as it affects major and important decisions and policies everywhere.