Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Krauthammer’s strange denier talk points, Part 1: Newton’s laws were “overthrown”

By Joe Romm

"Krauthammer’s strange denier talk points, Part 1: Newton’s laws were “overthrown”"


google plus icon

newton_1643-1727.jpgSir Isaac Newton is one of the towering geniuses in all human history. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer … not so much.

Krauthammer has written a classic anti-science screed, “Carbon Chastity: The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment,” that recasts many favorite anti-scientific denier memes in odd terms. You still hear and see all of these today, so let me touch on a few of them. And as I discuss in Part 2, the article is most useful because it is a very clear statement of the real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science– they hate the solution.

As a physicist, my favorite denier talking point is his strange version of the old claim that “scientists are flip floppers, constantly changing their theories.” He writes:

If Newton’s laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex and speculative — is a closed issue.

Now that is a strange claim. Newton’s Laws of Motion are still taught in every high school, in every introductory physics class in college, and even in graduate physics classes. Indeed, they are widely used everywhere to explain and estimate wide varieties of motion. Heck, even NASA still uses them: “The motion of an aircraft through the air can be explained and described by physical principals discovered over 300 years ago by Sir Isaac Newton.”

But Professor Krauthammer says they were overthrown and that 200 years of experiments and observations were wrong. What gives? Why aren’t all our planes falling out of the sky?

Newton’s laws are “excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life” that, along with his law of gravitation and calculus techniques, “provided for the first time a unified quantitative explanation for a wide range of physical phenomena.”

They fail in very special cases — speeds close to the speed of light (where you need Einstein’s special theory of relativity), near large gravitational fields (where you need to Einstein’s general theory of relativity) or at a very, very small scales (where you need quantum mechanics). Interestingly, many of the laws of those three theories are written in the same form as Newton’s and they revert to Newton’s equations for everyday life (see an example at the end of this post).

So Krauthammer’s statement is absurdly misleading, since he is implying that “200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation” were “overthrown” — when they weren’t. So his implication that all the unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation of climate science will be overthrown is equally absurd. Indeed, anybody seeking to replace climate science will have to come up with a more comprehensive theory that still explains everything we know from existing climate science and observations.

This may seem like a small point, but in fact it is a large point, one that former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, John Holdren, has repeatedly made. Let me discuss this in the context of another anti-scientific talking point of Krauthammer’s:

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research — untainted and reliable – to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Let’s ignore the sweeping implication that somehow all previous climate science research was tainted and unreliable. Notice the bias in his point (b). Why does he propose to only do research to see if there are negative feedback loops? Shouldn’t we be doing research to study all feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including those that are positive or amplifying? Indeed, such research has already been done, and the best science says that the positive feedbacks outweigh the negative ones, probably by a large amount — see, for instance

Sorry Charley, on feedbacks, climate scientists have been there and done that. You can demand more research to uncover a mystery deus ex machina negative feedback — but it would have to be big enough to overwhelm all of the large amplifying feedbacks.

But point (a) is perhaps more relevant here. As Holdren likes to say, the issue is not whether some new study might find that solar activity is a dominant contributor to recent warming — although that notion has been about as utterly debunked as anything is science (see here, for instance). This hypothetical study that identified some new dominant cause of warming would, at the same time, have to identify mechansims that were blocking the well understood warming caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. That science and those results and observations don’t suddenly disappear just because somebody writes one new paper or puts forward a new theory. Debunking climate science is thus a double challenge, not a single one.


If Einstein’s special theory of relativity did not revert to Newton’s laws for everyday situations, and thus validate 200 years of observations and experiments, nobody would have paid even one minute of attention to it.

Newton’s Second Law of Motion is the “Rate of change of momentum is proportional to the resultant force producing it and takes place in the direction of that force.” Momentum is mass (m) times velocity (v). The rate of change is momentum in Newton’s classical mechanics is mass times the change in velocity per unit time (dv/dt), which is also known as acceleration (a). It is written in a vector notation, since the net Force (F) is applied in a certain direction, and velocity is in a certain direction. And so the well-known equation — F=ma — is written as a vector differential equation (see discussion here):


What Newton of course didn’t know was that an object’s mass also changes with speed, at least at very, very, very high speeds. So in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, this formula becomes


where the speed of light c0 is a mere 186,000 miles per second, and yes, it is, famously, squared. So let’s say Charles Krauthammer is in a car traveling 60 miles per hour (88 feet per second). The correction to Newton’s equation is of the order of the velocity squared divided by the speed of light squared or one part in 100 trillion.

But let’s say Charles Krauthammer is moving really, really fast — fast enough to achieve escape velocity and be launched into space [a guy can dream, can't he?] or about 7 miles a second. The correction to Newton’s equation is of the order of a little more than one part in a billion. And that is about the same fraction of knowledge of climate science that Krauthammer seems to possess.


Now the very strange thing is that while Krauthammer refuses to accept climate science, he loves evolution. Three years ago, in a piece titled, “Phony Theory, False Conflict,” he wrote

I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.

I kid you not. Newton, whose laws were overthrown, is one of the two greatest scientists of all time. But I digress, the really amazing part of the article is when he writes:

Let’s be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological “theory” whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge — in this case, evolution — they are to be filled by God. It is a “theory” that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, “I think I’ll make me a lemur today.” A “theory” that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science — that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase ” natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us,” thus unmistakably implying — by fiat of definition, no less — that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

You could almost say the same exact thing about global warming denial. But why doesn’t he?

Why break faith with so many conservatives and worship at the altar of evolution science, but stick with them on climate denial? That’s easy. Believing in evolution doesn’t require endorsing government action. Believing in climate science does. That is the subject of Part 2.


‹ White House Report: Human Activity Is ‘Most Likely Responsible For Global Warming’

Climate Progress exceeds 100,000 unique visitors in May ›

66 Responses to Krauthammer’s strange denier talk points, Part 1: Newton’s laws were “overthrown”

  1. charlie says:

    great. next your going to say Galileo was right…..

  2. Russ says:

    It’s long struck me how AGW denial violates Occam’s Razor. Here you have facts (carbon emissions and rising concentration), a well-delineated theory which predicts various effects from these facts, and now many years of a track record of those effects occurring on or ahead of schedule.

    So it’s evident that this theory is working very well so far, while to supersede it you need to claim:
    1. In spite of its coherence and eminent plausibility, the theory is just plain wrong. (Also WHY it’s wrong. For some reason they’re never able to find the flaw.)
    2. That the predicted effects occurring as predicted is just a really amazing coincidence.
    3. That the effects are really being caused by some other factor (which the science is also unaccountably screwing up, since the science says solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, etc do not cover the observed change).

    This is certainly an egregious example of “needlessly multiplying entities”.

    I also despise this selective acceptance of science based on one’s agenda. If we compare three theories – anthro climate change, evolution, and gravitation – which are as close as science comes to “truths”, we see how the same persons will reject AGW if it menaces their greed ideology, evolution if it sullies their religion, while none of them reject gravity simply because it doesn’t gore any sacred cow. (If it did, we’d certainly have the theory of Intelligent Falling.) Yet these same cretins, if they get sick, will go to the hospital to genuflect before that exact same science which is the result of that exact scientific method they so cavalierly, indeed gleefully, reject where its results are inconvenient. (At least the “christian science” types who reject transfusions etc. are consistent. But if you don’t trust science to tell you where homonids came from or what’s going to happen at 1000ppm, why would you trust it with your health?)

  3. I love being called a “threat to freedom”:

    “The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity,” warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, “is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism.”

    Also, in terms of use and abuse of scientific terms:

    “Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism”

    First of all, political ideologies don’t tend to die, they evolve and they adapt. Socialism is alive and well in Europe and other areas, where people tend to be happier and have higher quality of life than in the U.S. Communism hasn’t really died yet either, since Cuba is still clinging on to it. Second, claiming ‘emipirical demonstration’ in social sciences has no meaning at all.

    I can’t wait for part 2.

  4. Andy says:

    What is the purpose of opinion columns and what editing rules apply to them?

    Lately, like since Bush II was elected and some members of the republican party and some business interests (oil and coal producers for example) have come out of the closet with their greed and incompetence; it seems that many such columnists have taken to spouting utter nonsense aimed at convincing readers that nothing has really changed and nothing new has been learned since said columnist formed their world view at the average age of 13.

    Whether the subject is world climate, natural resource depletion, the compentency of certain republican politicians, the role of the US in the advancement of the world’s societies, etc. it seems that all these columnists do is aimed at convincing news readers that the obviously butt naked emperor does have clothes on. They form a kind of anti-news page. Their slogan should be “when the real news has you down, read my column and be happy again and by the way kill all those enviromeddlists and anyone else who says GW is an idiot”.

    There are exceptions, but I can name a lot of columnists that are totally off the rails: Michelle Malkin, Kathleen Parker, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Novak, and others. At some point I hope their editors realize that ending their careers isn’t censoring, but would be no different than say firing an outright racist or someone who seriously threatens others with harm.

    Wait, that analogy isn’t going to work.

  5. Lou Grinzo says:

    Joe: Great piece. You’re at your best when we can almost see the steam coming out of your ears.

    Andy: I feel your journalistic pain. This bothers me, also, and I have to keep reminding myself that the editors and syndicates don’t give a flying fig if the off-the-rails crowd is right or wrong–they just care that they help them make money. I find it deeply depressing just how terrible many newspapers have become; some, even from mid-size cities, are little more than the city-wide equivalent of a high school newspaper. The cost of that lost opportunity is simply staggering.

  6. tidal says:

    well said. bravo.

  7. Dennis says:

    Krauthammer’s column makes the typical anti-climate research charge that there is something very, very wrong going on in the scientific community that scientists must be injecting their political bias into their research. (How else do you interpret the phrase “Church of the Environment?”) Like all other doubters and deniers, he fails to to address the science. And this coming from a physician.

    I just spent the past 15 minutes discussing both the Krauthammer and this piece here with an otherwise very intelligent climate-denier, whose bottom line is that Newton was wrong and Einstein proved that. This is the logic we have to put up with in the US now: all science is just plain wrong.

  8. Dano says:

    it is a very clear statement of the real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science– they hate the solution.

    This is true to a point, Joe.

    The other part is that adopting the solution negates their belief that their ideology is the best choice for solution sets. Negating their ideology attacks their self-identity. It’s psychology of self identity.



  9. Nylo says:

    1) Your “permafrost” series focuses on tundra liberating Methane. I have two questions. How did the methane get there in the first place? Let me bet is happened in warm periods in Earth’s history with plants in Siberia being able to create the needed biomass. Let me bet that this means that the warmer siberia gets, the more vegetation it will start to have, which do trap carbon, not liberate it, as it must have happened when methane was first put there. Or does methane generate by itself?

    2) The beetle tree article compares the WORST year for the MOST-AFECTED region, British Columbia, to the 40-year AVERAGE of forest fires in Canada, a country which is not especially representative of forest fires taking place in the world. And still forest fires win. Just check the article or its abstract.

    3) The tropical rainforests article studies the growth rate change in only 50Ha of rainforest in a given island of Panama, between 1985-1990 and 1990-1995 (pinatubo affected?). Isn’t it a bit early to extrapolate? Why didn’t they increase the time scope or compare with other rainforests? Furthermore, net growth in old rain forests should be 0 (after they reach the critical mass), and for any individual plant, it should be always decreasing. The biggest, the slower they continue to grow.

    4) “The ocean sink is saturating” is a conclussion not based on observations of the sea. From the relevant article, a press release by the University of East Anglia in May 2007 (not peer-reviewed), we read: “The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations AROUND THE WORLD [caps are mine]. Since 1981 the Southern Ocean sink ceased to increase, whereas CO2 emissions increased by 40%”. They are trying to decide what the ocean does or does not by observing the carbon in the atmosphere all around the globe, which we know redistributes very quickly. That’s why we only use the readings in Mauna Loa to represent the CO2 concentration in the whole world. So what the press-release should really conclude is that “total CO2 uptake in the world has ceased to increase while CO2 emissions increased”, without concluding any source for the CO2 uptake being “the southern ocean” or even oceans in general.

    But let me tell you, regarding CO2 uptakes, that between May-August, the 4 months of the year when NH plants grow the most, total CO2 uptake in those months has raised 0.8 ppm compared to the uptake we had in those months in the seventies (from 3 ppm then to 3.8 ppm now), in spite of the always increasing emissions. At the same time, total CO2 increase during the months of Nov-Feb, when NH plants grow the least or nothing, has increased in 1 ppm compared to the increases we suffered in the seventies (from 4ppm then to 5 ppm now). This tells something about who is “guilty” for the reduced increase in the CO2 concentration increase ratio. Emissions increase is +40%, while CO2 concentration increase ratio is only +25% (1.6ppm/year to 2ppm/year). It all points to NH photosinthesis increasing because of both CO2 concentration and temperatures increase. I will post a very illustrating graph later but the data is from Mauna Loa, you can verify it yourself. Positive feedbacks, you said?

    5) Official desertification processes depend on who you are talking to. You mentioned Spain in your linked article. When the spanish government goes to the UE to ask for money to stop desertification, they say that it is a great problem and we have more and more desertic areas every year. On the other hand, when the spanish government goes to Kyoto-related events, they say that our forested area has increased 10% and we are better carbon-sinks than before. Declarations are driven by money in both cases, it seems, and are completely contradictory. At least one of them has to be false.

  10. agog says:

    If you accept that the US MSM has become part of the problem whether it is the issue of AGW or launching wars of choice, English speakers have much better alternatives. One can pretty much ignore the US media at no loss and, in fact, at the gain of much saved time.

    My preferred news sources are the Financial Times (print/web) and the BBC World Service (internet radio). The quantity and quality of information available is far superior to their US equivalents.

  11. Eli Rabett says:

    Nylo, let me bet that that methane in the permafrost was deposited over millions of years, and if it burps, it comes out in lot lot shorter time. Let me further bet that you will pretend to think this makes no difference. Let me further bet that all of your other spaghetti comes from the same bowl.

  12. John McCormick says:


    I was furious that the Post gave column inches to Charles Krauthhammer’s screed. I have followed his career because I find him a fascination, I must admit. Once he wrote a column about memories of his deceased brother and it opened doors of memories about my deceased brother and me. That has been a marking point in my life.

    You said:

    [The other part is that adopting the solution negates their belief that their ideology is the best choice for solution sets. Negating their ideology attacks their self-identity. It’s psychology of self identity.]

    Curious about who he really is (his bio) I found this on Wikipedia;

    [edit] Ideology
    Krauthammer is generally considered a conservative or neoconservative. However, he is a supporter of legalized abortion[11][12][13], an opponent of the death penalty[14][15][16][17], an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a “false conflict” [18][19], a supporter of embryonic stem cell research (involving embryos discarded by fertility clinics),[20][21][22] and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation.

    He sounds like me. He sounds like a candidate who would get my vote. But, I am an acolyte in the Church of the Environment.

    I believe Dr. Krauthhammer has not had the benefit of sitting with a Gavin Schmidt, Mike MacCraken or Susan Solomon (not Al Gore) to defend his point of view. He should have no difficulty doing that if that discussion is held in confidence. Publicly ridiculing someone in his position and with his reach on public opinion may only harden him. Exploring his beliefs with professional scientists such as those I mention could either serve to quiet or soften him. Either way, we get to deal with an influential denialist in private and maybe we reap the benefits.

    There are people out there including the Washington Post Editorial Board who can facilitate this. Come back with your thoughts on this suggestion.

    John McCormick

  13. civil behavior says:

    I have a question for the likes of Nylo.

    Alpine environments are changing.

    Lower altitude forests grow upwards.

    Glacier melt ……….ten times faster than thought

    Extreme weather events


    Rising sea levels

    water shortages

    Migrations from low-lying areas
    Computer modeling gives us a potential range of results, and the current changes are within the envelope of the models’ ranges. In fact, the models have been wrong only to the degree that they seem to have underestimated the changes. So it is a question of refinement, not of being totally out of the ballpark.
    Your reductionist view wants to see human actions in isolation.
    Unlike this blogs author I have no credentials to speak to the empirical science . I could admit that I am not some high minded genius. I am well read. I do have a well practiced ability to reason critically. I always question everything. I also am not inclined to have to be particularly diplomatic like this blogs author.
    So I’ll be damned if I am going to sit by, even in a conversation with some information I may not be able to assimilate, and allow my common sense, intuition and knowledge about what obviously is happening to the greatest mother of time be accorded to the dustbin because some other monkeys feel we should err on the side of greed.
    Bottom line. This is not about arguing about climate change and man’s contribution to it. You’d have to be your own mothers fool not to see that. It’s about telling the truth about who stands to lose the most and gain the least from denying it. That’s the argument. Telling the truth about the money at stake. How dare anyone want to err by continuing the debate and not taking drastic measures to stop the carbon emissions from man is beyond comprehension.

    You choose instead to attempt to further confuse and obfuscate about whether the “desertification processes depend on who you are talking to or whether “The ocean sink is saturating” is a conclussion not based on observations of the sea. (and it’s conclusion not conclussion).

    Do you when arguing these unremarkable minutiae ever get out of the box you live in and go to the seaside? Walk in the forest? Have you any idea how the majority of people on earth are watching their very essence of living with a very small carbon imprint be recklessly diminished by the encroachment of “progress” and “civilization’? I daresay you’ve lost your connection. I would reckon that you haven’t been very dirty for quite awhile.

    For the sake of billions of people on earth I request your participation in making this earth a cleaner, healthier very likely less calamitous place to call home. Start today by joining those of us who reject the empire’s call to the dollar and want to build an earth community where survival is more than a shiny new toy in every garage. Your obtuseness is pain felt worldwide.

  14. Ronald says:

    You are getting a few responses aren’t you.

    I will answer number 5 of your post. You mentioned Spain which is claiming larger deserts and larger forests, how is it possible to have both. but land could also be pasture, farm, park or range land. Or even humanly city. Hard to know without the numbers.

    That’s not to say that a program like Kyoto or carbon cap and trade won’t be someway gamed by somebody and almost certainly it will be in some ways. Just like all other systems can be gamed. But hopefully the final results will be worth doing them. And just any system can be abused doesn’t mean that the orginal problem isn’t a worse of a problem.

  15. Earl Killian says:

    Krauthammer is confused about Einstein’s views of religion too. You cited him saying “I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous: that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious.” Let’s see how that compares with what is known of Einstein’s views:

    Einstein, as he says in his autobiographical notes, lost his religion at the age of 12, concluding that it was all a lie, and he never looked back.

    “If something is in me that can be called religious,” he wrote in another letter, in 1954, “then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it.”

    Einstein consistently characterized the idea of a personal God who answers prayers as naive, and life after death as wishful thinking.

    In the letter, according to the A.P. account, he wrote that “the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

    As for his fellow Jews, he said that Judaism, like all other religions, was “an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

  16. Nylo says:

    Ronald, what happens with Spain is that the increased dessert areas only mean areas without wild plant growth. But Almería, the region most affected by this problem, is also one of the regions with the highest productivity in agriculture, and the plants don’t grow in evergreen grasslands but – yes – in the desert! They are covering the cultivated areas with plastics to create a huge greenhouse area which both raises temperature inside and reduces water lost by evaporation. This together with efficient water management creates ideal conditions for the plant growth. You have never seen or tasted tomatoes like the ones they grow there. So maybe we have less wild growth in those areas, but at the same time we have increased controlled and useful plant growth. If you add to this that the remaining regions in Spain are increasing their forested areas, I can hardly see a problem at all.

    Here you have a photo from the ISS of the greenhouses in Almería:


  17. Nylo says:

    [JR: This is getting tedious, but one last time before you get banned permanently, most of the points below are either disinformation or actual predictions from global warming.]

    Joe, will you clarify to me which of these is disinformation, that deserved to be deleted? I can provide links for any of them.

    * Alpine environments are changing to more life.
    [A prediction from global warming, but, as we've seen, this is most likely and amplifying feedback since it reduces albedo. So let's just call this misinformation, or mis-applied information.]
    * Lower altittude forest going up again means more life.
    [I would called this disinformation. Obviously, Lower altitude forests cannot keep climbing for ever. Duh! Plus higher altitudes do not have the same eco-systems as lower altitudes, so not all life can simply migrate higher.]
    * Anctartica is getting colder.
    [This is a combination of misinformation and disinformation. First, the most important thing about the Antarctic is whether it is gaining ice or losing ice. The IPCC in 2001 had predicted it would not lose net mass this century. It already is. This presumably means that the water around Antarctica is warming. Also, parts of the land are also warming. Antarctica has long been known to be a continent that generates its own climate.]
    * Ice depth in the interior of Greenland is increasing.
    [Climate scientists have long predicted that Greenland would see more snowfall in the interior. What is shocking is that the continent is still losing ice mass.]
    * Extreme weather events and droughts have always ocurred.
    [Let's just call this a red herring. The issue is weather extreme events in droughts are becoming more common, and the data is very clear that they are. Perhaps more important, droughts in particular are projected to become much more pervasive, to the point where we won't call them droughts, we'll just call the areas where they occur deserts because that will be the new climate.]
    * Rising sea levels have not yet caused any problem anywhere.
    [That is both disinformation and misinformation. Rising sea levels have impacted a great many low-lying areas already. But again it is what will happen to sea levels if we listen to people like you that is the great concern.
    * Water shortages are happening mostly in population increasing places due to increased water usage.
    [Disinformation. I love the use of the phrase "mostly in population increasing places." pretty much every place in the world is population increasing. But in fact the worst water shortages are in places where they see extended drought. Check out Australia some time.]
    * CO2 is not dirty, it won’t become a venom for any species by changing levels to 10 times higher than today, and it is a main ingredient in the life cycle. It fails to meet any defining characteristic of what a “pollutant” is. Trying to define it as pollutant because of the GH effect it generates would require defining water vapour as a pollutant too (and a 4 times stronger one).
    [Disinformation and misinformation. The Supreme Court said CO2 is a pollutant so you would seem to have lost this particular one. The fact that something is a main ingredient in life doesn't mean that too much of it isn't dangerous. We need water. Too much is fatal. Heck, we need a lot of trace elements that are fatal in large quantities. Humans don't disrupt the hydrological cycle to the extent of pouring 30 billion tons of water vapor each year into the atmosphere, except, of course, as a feedback. This is purely a denier talking point, and you should be ashamed for putting your name on it. It is beneath you.]
    * Carbon in the methane stored in permafrost soils can only be a small fraction of the stable ammount of carbon they once had on surface in the form of vegetation.
    [Rather embarrassing you would make such an absurd point. As one of the commenters pointed out, the issue is the rate of uptake and release. You can store a lot of carbon over hundreds of thousands of years -- releasing it over a century ain't good. By the way, "small fraction" is pure disinformation. Get your facts straight.]

    I would especially like to know why those are disinformation and, on the other hand, claiming a sea-level raise of at least! 80 feet (more than 25 meters) together with a 70% loss of species, huge ocean acidification and a desertification of one third of the planet and droughts in half of it, including losses of all inland glaciers (do you include anctartica there?) under a 1000 ppm scenario, is not disinformation. Where is the science, the links, for that?
    [I have a couple of extended posts on this, which I often link to. This is all in the literature. Don't waste my time forcing me to repeat what I've already written more than once. Although I suspect that is your primary goal, and it is the primary reason I will keep deleting your nonsense.]

  18. Nylo says:


  19. Ted M says:

    You have met the enemy and he is you. I found Krauthammer interesting but not convincing, so I thought I’d search for comments on his piece. Reading these public comments has convinced me how right he is and how tdangerous you guys are.

  20. Joe says:

    Ted — Yeah, right.

  21. Dan says:

    What can be said to a group of individuals that looks down on anyone that would suggest God played a role in anything (without proof,right?). These same people are confident that: 1)The earth is getting substantially warmer 2)Man plays a huge role in this 3) They don’t need to debate or even listen to a snippet from anyone thought of as a ‘denier’.
    Who is being ignorant in not even listening to the other side? Who are the biggest hypocrites walking God’s green earth (hint, its the ones convinced of global warming and can pacify others w/ carbon credits). C’mon, if you believe it…..then live it. Don’t fly in a plane, if you are convinced it it is pure evil.
    Cow farts cause more carbon issues than any one other issue.
    We are ready for your facism….bring it on.

    [JR: Useful to hear the extreme, self-destuctuve ignorance from time to time. Thanks.]

  22. I thought I’d search for comments on his piece.

  23. sohbet says:

    My preferred news sources are the Financial Times (print/web) and the BBC World Service (internet radio). The quantity and quality of information available is far superior to their US equivalents.

  24. key says:

    I thought I’d search for comments on his piece.

  25. John says:

    Thank you very much for this information.
    Good post thanks for sharing.
    I like this site ;)

  26. hekimboard says:

    Great.Thanks a lot.

  27. thank you very much…

  28. ssk sorgulama thank you very much…

  29. Estetik says:

    You may enjoy writing an article about Bagdasarian Productions, a company that makes claims to have a trademark over the letter “A” of the alphabet, in any shape, color or form.

  30. cam balkon says:

    thankss youu
    Sir Isaac Newton is one of the towering geniuses in all human history. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer … not so much

  31. oyun says:

    ı have followed your writing for a long time.really you have given very successful information.
    In spite of my english trouale,I am trying to read and understand your writing.
    And ı am following frequently.I hope that you will be with us together with much more scharings.
    I hope that your success will go on.

  32. estetik says:

    The project’s official name is “JVM Language Runtime”, rather than “Java Language Runtime”, and it’s intended to target *all* varieties of languages for the JVM. And yes, the name is a direct nod to the DLR (Dynamic Language Runtime) for the CLR, which is both a good idea and a good name. But we’d like to be all-inclusive, providing tools and frameworks for all varieties of languages. And rather than starting right away building a common base all languges must conform to, we’ll generalize existing solutions to common JVM language implementation challenges, drawing from the large existing base of already-implemented languages for the JVM.

  33. thanks you wery much.

  34. kadın says:

    Thank you admin. Wery good text.

  35. bebek says:

    thank you admin.

  36. kadın says:

    wery good thanks

  37. Denizli Rehber
    Great Post . Thank you for this article

  38. Who are the biggest hypocrites walking God’s green earth (hint, its the ones convinced of global warming and can pacify others w/ carbon credits). C’mon, if you believe it…..then live it. Don’t fly in a plane, if you are convinced it it is pure evil.

  39. Max says:

    Krauthammer is certainly wrong if he is claiming that if Newtonian physics was “overthrown” by Einstein, and if this kind of “overthrowment” happens often in science, then we should be especially wary of what climate scientists tell us. I think you’re mistaken, however, when you ridicule Krauthammer’s claim that Einstein did actually overthrew Newtonian physics. He did. You basically make the following argument: Since Newtonian classical mechanics remains accurate and successful within the macroscopic scales and speeds of everyday life, the Newtonian picture of the world must still be true as knowledge about what the world is really like. Since Einsteinian physics is also true about the world, then Einsteinian physics does not overthrow Newton, but rather builds on, refines, etc. Newton.

    Yes, as your car example shows, Newton’s laws are indeed spectacularly successful for analyzing and predicting physical phenomena of everyday scale. Your move from this fact of success within a limited range of phenomena to the claim that Newtonian physics is just as right about the world despite Einstein is fallacious. As can be seen from the most cursory review of the history of science, the success of a theory or law in prediction and practical application is not evidence of its success as a piece of knowledge about how the world really is.

    For example, the fact that the geocentric model was for hundreds of years successfully used for practical applications and predictions in astronomy, navigation, and agriculture doesn’t mean that the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth. The fact that for over 2000 years Euclidean geometry was successfully used in hundreds of thousands of practical applications and predictions does not mean that, as a description of what the world is really like, it is true. We now know that space is curved and that, when extended far enough, parallel lines, for instance, do in fact meet (and that triangles don’t sum to 180 degrees, etc.). Euclidean geometry is a good approximation for what most of us will ever need it for, a geocentric model is also sufficient for many highly significant predictions and applications, and Newtonian physics still successfully serves its limited function.

    In defending the truth of Newton in light of Einstein you fallaciously conflate success/utility with verification of epistemic content. Einstein has indeed overthrown the truth of a Newtonian picture of the world even though Newtonian laws are still roughly successful. Einstein still uses the traditionally terms such as space, time, force, matter, but in fact each of these terms has a different meaning in an Einstein world than what they do in a Newtonian one. There is the illusion of a more or less seamless evolution or development of Newton by Einstein, which is why you are aghast at words like “overthrown”. But, for instance, space no longer refers to a homogenous, isotropic, and flat space. The picture of the world and the knowledge we get about what it is like from Newton is significantly different than what we get from Einstein. The change in epistemic content is at a fundamental level; the Newtonian universe and the Einsteinian universe are incommensurable.

  40. It’s nice, I am learning, thank you….

  41. Thanks a lot. keep it up…

  42. Professor B says:

    Either Krauthammer’s points are over this blogger’s head, or he is disingenuous.

    “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” –Samuel Adams

  43. medyum says:

    The other part is that adopting the solution negates their belief that their ideology is the best choice for solution sets. Negating their ideology attacks their self-identity. It’s psychology of self identity. Medyum

  44. nice,thanks for sharing.

  45. çıldır says:

    It’s nice, I am learning, thank you….

  46. Thanks a lot. keep it up…

  47. chat says:

    tnks very nice.

  48. diyet says:

    “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” –Samuel Adams

  49. mmo says:

    Good read, thx for posting