The Public Policy
Profiles in Cowardice
What has happened in Arkansas the last few weeks is illustrative of the global warmists’ nervous intolerance.
The intimidation tactics and belittling words of those in global warming alarmism are only a means to cloak the weaknesses of their arguments, especially now that the scientific and economic evidence has found a broader, more receptive audience — check the latest poll results if you don’t believe me.
Put succinctly, their efforts to silence opposing viewpoints to their dogma have only proven that they are a bunch of chicken-twits. Now that doubting Dorothy has doused Elmira Gulch’s other ego with a cocktail of moderating temperatures and an economy in distress, the cries that their forecasts are “melting, melting, aagghhhh” approach a shrill peak.
What has happened in Arkansas the last few weeks is illustrative.
The story starts, as is the case in so many states, with Gov. Mike Beebe’s (video link) creation of the Governor’s Commission on Global Warming. In most other states where they’ve been developed, these panels have been fashioned purely by executive fiat. Arkansas’s GCGW was authorized also by a law (PDF) to study potential impacts of global warming and ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (the presumed evil behind global temperature uptick). But the GCGW was also given the mandate to “study the scientific data, literature, and research on global warming to determine whether global warming is an immediate threat to the citizens in the State of Arkansas….”
Turns out this area of “study” was only allowed to go so far. As is the standard when the Center for Climate Strategies is granted management control of a state’s climate commission (approaching two dozen so far), the prerequisite for CCS to take the job is that no debate of the climate science is allowed. Like the intolerant Al Gore, CCS cannot suffer dissent, flat-earthers, or moonwalk-deniers.
Needless to say, the likelihood that global warming would cause the Arkansas River to flood the William J. Clinton Presidential Library — or other climate-driven Razorback State catastrophe could-be’s — was never discussed. Instead doom was presumed (PDF) should greenhouse gases continue unabated.
It seemed everyone there went happily along with the program. I sent an op-ed to explain problems with the process to Democrat-Gazette editor of the editorial page (or “EEP”) Ed Gray, and he said, “I would rather have someone from Arkansas writing about Arkansas subjects.” Fair enough, I thought at the time.
But towards the end of 2008, as has happened in other states, I began to hear from concerned folks who followed the process. One I engaged myself was Dr. Richard Ford, an environmental economics professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, who also happened to be the only economist on the GCGW. He had not heard of me, but I was told he did not appreciate how CCS drove the commission towards their predetermined conclusions. He was a local and directly knowledgeable source on the subject, and therefore met the Democrat-Gazette’s qualifications, right?
Not so fast. According to Ford — who submitted his own piece about the GCGW to the newspaper — EEP Ed told him, “I have decided to stay out of that — if I use it I would have to use a companion piece.” As I have learned over the last two years, the EEP species sometimes demand a “companion piece” when global warming dogma is challenged, especially when they are cornered by a well-reasoned, fact-based essay. Meanwhile hundreds of other op-eds sail into publication, companionless. Perhaps the EEPs’ endangered habitat is affecting their judgment.
But it turned out that EEP Ed’s demurral had limited suppressive effect. As 2008 closed, syndicated columnist David Sanders of roughly two dozen Arkansas newspapers trained his critical eye upon the sham process that was the GCGW. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Yes, six (6) times. As Dr. Ford sounded warnings about the GCGW with legislators, Sanders’s reports drew out others on the commission with similar gripes.
“The commission members themselves weren’t as big of participants as was CCS, quite frankly,” said Gary Voigt, president of the Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas. “Commission members didn’t have the input; CCS’s consultants had most of the input. There was a structure and a goal.”
“As a commissioner,” said Kevin Inboden of Jonesboro’s city and water utility, “when I hear that the commission recommended this or that, it doesn’t tell the whole story. There was a lot of dissension and opposition.”
The piece de resistance of the resistance came in a legislative hearing held last week in Little Rock, in which famed atmospheric scientist skeptic Red Hot Lies” author Chris Horner, and two myth-busters from the Science and Public Policy Institute delivered multiple puncture wounds to global warming alarmism. As a local left-wing blog threw apoplectic fits, a Democratic Senate committee chairman tried to shut the meeting down. But the pressure brought by Sanders, the scheduled skeptics, and the bold dissenters on GCGW was too much, and the hearing was held.
The Arkansas scenario was a microcosm of the alarmists’ flailing on the issue globally. The more they try to silence their opposition, and portray them as unworthy of contemplation while positing their own outrageous doomsday scenarios, the further they push themselves to the fringe in public perception. That so many who hear these calamity predictions are freezing their keisters this winter doesn’t help the warming cause.
Before long the alarmists who have so desperately and cowardly avoided debates will be begging for them, so they can recover their evaporated credibility.
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (108) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/22/profiles-in-cowardice
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.22.09 @ 9:04AM
Just follow the MONEY, boys and girls. There are so many people that have no idea that the GREAT METEOROLOGIST, the GREAT CLIMATOLOGIST-Al Gore-has this sweet little HEDGE FUND thingy, going on for HIMSELF. Why, just the other day, those IDIOTS at the Church Of England, deposited a hefty $200 Million in the GREAT PROPHETS' Bank Account. And why is it, that the ones who TALK the loudest, are the ones with the biggest CARBON FOOTPRINTS? They all seem to have BIG HOUSES. The Kennedys, Al-(Millionare. I own a Mansion and a Yacht)- Gore, John-(there's 2 Americas, so I need 2 families)-Edwards, John-(Occupation: Rich Widow Collector)-Kerry. The list is endless. They fly around in their PRIVATE JETS. They drive their SUVs. Hell, Arnold-(my Father was a NAZI)-Scwartzeneger, flies HIS JET, back and forth to work. EVERY DAY! These idiots make Bernie Madoff look like the tooth fairy. It's nice to see that folks are starting to wake up to the SCAM. Maybe that Idiot we just swore in, can discuss it with his new GLOBAL WARMING DIRECTOR. What a BOOB.
Greg| 1.22.09 @ 9:28AM
Timothy--I couldn't have said that better myself!
Bruce| 1.22.09 @ 9:30AM
Yes, it's a snakeoil show -- no doubt about that.
Curly Smith| 1.22.09 @ 10:43AM
Nationally, Arkansas consistently ranks at the bottom on education and economic issues. Yet the government of that state is aggressively seeking to destroy any hope for economic growth, and all of the benefits that growth will fund, to pursue a political farce. The desired end result is apparent if one looks at Africa -- the AGW crowd is seeking to turn Arkansas into a "Hillbilly Preserve". Unfortunately, as Arkansas does rank at the bottom in education, the Commissioners don't understand that they're destined to become pets.
TBR| 1.22.09 @ 10:48AM
Al Gore is just the latest incarnation of Professor Harold Hill. Instead of the Music Man he is the Carbon Man.
"There's Carbon! Right here in River City!
With a captal T which stands for G,
Which stands for Gore (the sanctimonious bore)
Ya surely got Carbon!
Right here in River City!"
GP| 1.22.09 @ 10:52AM
I like Paul. He's thinking just like I do. The AGW dogs are all barking up the wrong tree. They are so completely blinded by their warmist agenda they look like a bunch of pea brains.
Appleby| 1.22.09 @ 11:17AM
Having recently shoveled about a foot of Global Warming off the roof of my cottage, with more expected this weekend, if Al Gore comes around here I will throw shoes at him. Not my shoes. HORSEshoes.
Chris| 1.22.09 @ 11:20AM
Once again liberals, the self proclaimed paragons of tolerance, demonstrate why they are the most intolerant people on the planet. And I keep hearing from my liberal friends how "anti-science" Bush was. I guess "diversity" applies to everything except thought. Welcome to President Obama's "brave new world!"
George| 1.22.09 @ 11:33AM
Lest we forget, Al Gore invented the Internet. Thanks to him it's possible for a relatively insignificant person such as myself to sit in his office wearing 3 shirts and shivering while reading American Spectator articles and posting comments about them. I wonder how much environmental damage is caused by all the electricity used to power the computing equipment needed to make this activity possible.
Interloper| 1.22.09 @ 12:37PM
Global warming is a fact. There is no need to research the issue from scratch. Where the attention needs to be is on mitigating its effects. Under the Obama administration, that will occur. The knuckle-dragging demonstrated in this article and its comments will be reduced to the disjointed mumblings of insane persons that it is.
Of course, the real question is: What interests are Paul Chesser representing in his campaign to deny global warming?
disruptive skeptic| 1.22.09 @ 12:46PM
This is the battle we want with the left. This is where we tell McCain and other republicans who've bought into this guff to step aside. I tell you brownouts and blackouts are coming if these crackpots are not challenged. Do people really understand the downside of windmills, do we really want every square inch of space in a suitable area covered over with them. Hell, Ted Kennedy may have a point about wind farms not being the most aesthetic sight to behold from a beach, too bad he can't connect to the practical idea of an LNG port in a traditional working harbor. These nuts, and that includes all democrats, some republicans,as well as the certified enviro nuts have no clue at all about how we are really gonna power this nation. None. We need an opposition that can do the facts, like what you need in juice just to keep a medium sized medical center powered. The opposition should be able to click off how much land and windmills are required , and thus illustrate the futility of their magical thinking. They wanna talk real honest science, like hell they do, but they repeat that mantra all the time. What about he real science of a nation with half a trillion people or more that is gleefully projected by 2050 is it ? Where is the juice ? Talk about this instead of the life issue all the time and watch the democrats take it on the chin. People do not want to suffer to placate Al Gore and Rob kennedy jr on this matter. Drill here , drill now , save money, create jobs, get off foreign sources, etc. Say what some of you do, only Pallin grasped this issue. She is one of the few pols out there knows the difference between a btu and a blt. I mean even McCain was leading or tied in the polls, when this issue was on peoples mind. Can one republican, right wing or rino, I do not care, mumble that a major reason manufacturing is down is because it takes power to build stuff ? So they build stuff in countries that actually construct nuclear power plants, as well as better tax structure, and a less insane tort system. Obama and dems say we can have nuclear when waste storage is solved. It will creep into water they say, whipping up false fear. Gee so they do not drink French wine, and nibble on French cheese? Time to nail these people, somehow, someway on this issue. Just going on on about abortion all the time and tax cuts for the super rich is not a winning political plan.
Bram| 1.22.09 @ 12:58PM
"Global warming is a fact"
Interloper must have learned scientific method in Arkansas public schools.
skating on glue| 1.22.09 @ 1:00PM
"Global warming is a fact. There is no need to research the issue from scratch."
What an incredibly well argued post- thanks for the supporting evidence, research results, etc.
Pretty cool how you summed up all this research by saying "It's a fact".
Sounds just like how they used to say "The sun revolves around the earth. It's a fact. No need to research the issue."
Scram, torquemada wannabe.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 1:24PM
Interloper,
Just because you say "global warming is a fact" doesn't make it one. Or do you fancy yourself god.
"I say it and it becomes true! Bow before Zod!"
No interloper, the real question is how many times your mother dropped you on your head?
Ed| 1.22.09 @ 1:24PM
"Global warming is a fact."
True enough, the earth has been warming for 400 years since the end of the 'Little Ice Age'. But where we need to focus our attention is on what's causing it. The capacity of CO2 to warm the planet has repeatedly been shown to be way overstated in the models, and the activity of the sun has been increasing, coincidentally, for 400 years.
Dustoff| 1.22.09 @ 1:25PM
Global warming is a fact
+++++++++++++++++++
Me thinks the folks in Florida may disagree with you right now. 40 degs.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 1:27PM
Ed,
It is an exercise in futillity to use reason with Interloper, he has none.
AustinG| 1.22.09 @ 2:51PM
Cut Interloper some slack. He demonstrated perfectly what we are up against. Rational thought vs irrational belief. If his side believed in examining all the evidence they wouldn't be where they are today. We don't have to convince him, just the people who do care about it but haven't heard another side because of the way AGW supporters suppress differing opinions.
Marc Jeric| 1.22.09 @ 2:53PM
"Global warming is a fact" - says that genius Interloper. After the globaloney cooling scam of the 1970's failed to bring us the socialist bliss, there was the globaloney warming hoax of the 1990's. And now, after 11 years of substantial cooling we are faced with the "climate change" flimflam. There are now over 31,000 scientists, including 9,000 with PhD's, who signed the statement that no human activities have ever or will in the future affect our climate. See Internet for "Global Warming Petition Project" and "Manhattan Declaration". As a true communist, Interloper does not admit of discussion - under penalty of death perhaps?
Michele San Pietro| 1.22.09 @ 3:25PM
I think it's high time to expel Arkansas from the United States.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 3:50PM
Hey all you global warming nuts out there.
Tell me something.
What ever happened to the Amazon jungle? Back in 1990, if we didn't stop the farmers from burning acres of jungle for their cattle, it was going to disappear in 5 years. And yet they kept on burning. And the jungle is still there.
Remember the photos from the space shuttle?
And then when bubba got in you didn't hear that much about it any more. Just like the dolphins and the homeless.
Interloper| 1.22.09 @ 4:38PM
Paul Chesser represents coal interests. He has made a career of posting the same cookie cutter op-ed articles claiming global warming is overstated and can't be curtailed to conservative sites and any newspapers that take the bait. Over and over and over again.
Alex| 1.22.09 @ 4:54PM
I am researching a paper for a college class and when I found this webpage I was ready to hear an opposing viewpoint to the global warming theory since we all hear about the popular view so much. Unfortunately, this article is just full of a bunch of name-calling and no real facts about whether or not humans are causing global warming in my opinion. Also, the comments section is full of the same thing, just people calling the people with an opposing viewpoint names. I am sorry, but I cannot take such immature behavior seriously.
rw| 1.22.09 @ 5:00PM
If global warming is a fact then the theory must have been proved. If the theory has been proved then scientists should able to independently confirm this through experimentation. The alarmists use predictive models in an attempt to confirm the validity of their theory. Unfortunately none of the models, not a single one, have been able predict what we are now experiencing. In other words their own models are proving their theory is full of wholes.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 5:07PM
Alex,
If you're still here, check out a site called "watts up with that". You'll have data coming out your ears.
Alex| 1.22.09 @ 5:29PM
I checked out the website a little. I read the first article and it seems like a good article, but I don't really see any damning evidence against global warming. I will check out a few more of the articles, hopefully something will come in handy for my paper. Thanks for the tip.
Virgina_FFV| 1.22.09 @ 5:38PM
It's obvious that the good people of Arkansas are smarter that I have given them credit for in the past. Kudos to the Arkies for not buying into the global warming BS.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 5:43PM
Alex,
Specifically check out the "projects", and then "surfacestations" under the picture.
There you will see how many tempurature recording stations don't follow national guidelines. And how many are next to A/C units, asphalt parking lots, sewage treatment plants.
Arthur| 1.22.09 @ 5:45PM
I read David Sanders' work on NRO last year . He is an Arkansas opinion writer who put it to Mike Huckabee during the '08 primaries. Good stuff.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 5:56PM
Alex,
Also check out Micheal Crichton.com
He's the late author of "Jurassic Park", "Andromeda Strain", "The Lost World" and a whole lot more. In case you didn't know.
Check out his speeches on AGW. And if you can read his book "State of Fear. Great read.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 6:20PM
That last part should read: And if you can, read his book.....
As in: "if you have the time". Not: "if you can read".
Missed the comma. Sorry.
Mike Kelley| 1.22.09 @ 6:35PM
Watts' sites are great. You can also check this one out: http://icecap.us/
Ed| 1.22.09 @ 7:29PM
Alex,
Also take a look at:
climateaudit.com (this one gets pretty technical)
surfacestations.org
co2sceptics.com
ilovemycarbondioxide.com
dig through the archives at americanthinker.com, lots of articles there.
Hope that helps. But be forewarned, you are about to embark on a dizzying array of data, equations, arguments, counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments. I just spent a month doing it.
Also do google searches for 'ice core data' and 'vostock ice core data'. The ice core analyses show that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise.
Alan Brooks| 1.22.09 @ 7:38PM
well at least Gore believes in hierarchicy.
("shut up, Brooks")
Alan Brooks| 1.22.09 @ 8:15PM
thats hierarchy, not 'hierarchicky'.
hierarchicky is a bar in Hollywood.
(and btw, Jeremiah is a weaselly demented cad of a losel [not lozel] )
Alex| 1.22.09 @ 8:25PM
Thanks for all the good websites, I will try to check them all out and see what they have to say. Thanks again!
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 8:29PM
Alex,
No problem. Hey when you finish your paper, can you post it, if you'r e able?
Alex| 1.22.09 @ 8:44PM
I could probably post it as an attachment. I don't know if you will like it though since I haven't really found anything supporting most of the people's opinions on this webpage. I am still researching. I looked at the projects section of the wattsupwiththat site and I see his concern but at the same time I don't think you can totally discredit global warming because some of the sites are nine feet away from an air conditioner. You have to have more proof and facts than that. But I will keep looking into it.
Alan Brooks| 1.22.09 @ 8:55PM
Gore has a $billion, so the factoid goes.
Ed| 1.22.09 @ 9:27PM
Alex,
Dig up the NOAA satellite data for Lower Troposphere (lowest level of the atmosphere) temps. It's on their website. It tells a different story than the surface station data. But you're right, there is still a long term warming trend that no one disputes. The only thing in dispute is to what degree are we actually warming and what is causing it.
Ed| 1.22.09 @ 9:35PM
Alex,
Check back tomorrow. I have some good articles bookmarked on my other machine. I'll post some of the links for you.
Nick| 1.22.09 @ 10:03PM
Ed,
I disagree. There are disputes.
First, there is no global temperature. The earth's climate is a system. What is the optimal global temp.? Is there such a thing? No one knows.
Second, if Russia stopped monitoring Siberia's temp. in the 90's and we let our weather stations get stuck next to producers of heat over the last 25+ years, don't you think that would skew the data a bit? I do.
richb313| 1.23.09 @ 1:24AM
Alex,
Yes Carbon Dioxide does intercept certain wavelengths of the Infrared Spectrum and can cause warming. However it does not progress in a linear fashion instead it follows a Natural Logrithic Curve. That means in order to see any measurable change you have to double the input. The Earths atmosphere already has enough Carbon Dioxide to be at the point of diminishing returns. The Amount of Carbon Dioxide could be doubled, then doubled, then re-doubled and the amount of Infared Energy absorbed would amount to nill. According to the Man Made Global Warming theory some sort of Positive Feedback makes the micro-scopic amount of Infared absorbed have a multiplying effect. The problem with this theory is that it totally ignors the Negative Feedback Mechanisms of Clouds. Water Vapor when not condensed into Clouds are the Major Green House Gas. As such this is supposed to be the Positive Feedback. Unfortunately Water Vapor has a nasty habit of condensing into clouds. This is why we have a habital planet in the first place. There are literally dozens of other feedback mechanisms in the climate/weather systems. Most are not understood. The politically motivated alarmists site computer models that do not incorperate Clouds, and dozens of other feedback mechanisms. The Science is mostly unknown so how can it possibly be settled? I hope that you can wade through the hundreds of papers written on this subject. There is even a paper written by some German Physicists that say the whole Green House Theory violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. My own opinion of that paper is that the methodology might be in question but the math is spot on. Research it yourself and come to your own conclusions, do not let anyone lead you around by the nose from one side or the other.
Jerry | 1.23.09 @ 8:21AM
Nick for a scientific prospective on climate models and their accuracy, check out Professor Roger Pielke's site at http://climatesci.org/
His last couple of posts on climate models are a great read, his response to realclimate is especially poignant and necessary for anyone who has not worked with some form of a model. While working on my graduate degree, I got to work with the Princeton Ocean Model which is used to simulate circulation and mixing processes in rivers, estuaries, shelf and slope, lakes, semi-enclosed seas and open and global ocean. This is a very simple program and yet can only simulate (i.e. get close) what transpires in the ocean. It could never predict exactly what was going to happen and this model is much better defined than any GCM.
"The only basic physics in the models are the pressure gradient force, advection and the acceleration due to gravity. These are the only physics in which there are no tunable coefficients. Climate models are engineering codes and not fundamental physics. - Roger Pielke"
Jerry| 1.23.09 @ 8:22AM
Oops, the last post should've been directed to Alex, sorry Nick.
Ed| 1.23.09 @ 8:51AM
Alex,
Have at it:
A great page on AGW
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
This is a devastating review of the 2007 IPCC report.
http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
On pp 8 & 9:
“scientists had to make “educated guesses” about the values of many parameters because knowledge about the physical processes of the Earth’s climate is incomplete”
“minor changes in parameters can result in forecasts of global cooling”
A 2007 study by Lockwood and Frolich claims to have disproven the idea that the sun alone could account for global warming, but Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit points out
”Of particular note, the part where they use CLIMAX data for the cosmic ray flux is a red herring, as CLIMAX measures mainly lower energy cosmic ray flux (>3 GV) while the higher energy cosmic rays that correlate with low level clouds are best detected by Huancayo and Haleakala (>13 GV).
The CLIMAX data is swamped by the lower energy cosmic rays which effectively masks the higher energy cosmic ray signal of interest - as an analogy, would anyone here try to pass off a study using IR data to try to discredit what is observed to be happening in the UV band?
You should also note that higher energy cosmic rays are claimed to effect lower level clouds, which is not even examined in the paper.
What ever way you look at it, they are comparing apples with oranges. “
A 2007 study by German physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner showed that the ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect used in the climate models violates the laws of physics. “According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”
An attempt was made by Arthur P Smith to refute their research. Smith’s work is accurate, but completely missed the central point that Gerlich and Tscheuschner made, which is that the equations of black-box radiation are applied incorrectly in the standard ‘Greenhouse Effect’ models. Specifically, infrared radiation from atmospheric greenhouse gasses back to the ground is accounted for twice, amplifying the warming effect. The result is that almost anyway you cut it, it will give you runaway global warming.
The German paper was widely misunderstood to claim that the greenhouse effect doesnt’ exist at all, which I think is due to their less than perfect English. You have to read it carefully to realize that they were only claiming the standard model of the greenhouse effect is incorrect.
MSU temp data. It matches the satellite data well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/05/rss-msu-lt-global-temperature-anomaly-for-april-2008-flat/
This site makes an important point. Prior to 1979, all temperature measurements were made by thermometer, which only have an accuracy of +/- 0.5 degrees. So temperature variations of tenths of a degree are statistically insignificant.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.chem/2007-08/msg00086.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros
Ed| 1.23.09 @ 8:56AM
Nick,
You're right, but we're talking apples & oranges. You're talking about recent temperature variations, and the only accurate data we have is not enough to draw any conclusions from. I was talking about the gradual warming trend since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago, which is definitely caused by the sun. It boils down to this: neither side can definitively prove their case, but I believe the AGW argument is very weak.
Ed| 1.23.09 @ 9:02AM
I had some embedded links that didn't come through, here they are:
Lockwood and Frolich
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
Steve McIntyre’s response
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1815&bcsi_scan_42F16C56A779BF44=9L6I6evP92JCdUshIhLX/QEAAAC4FXgB
Gerlich and Tscheuschner (this gets into heavy-duty physics)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Ed| 1.23.09 @ 9:19AM
One more - the extent of the antarctic ice sheet has been growing since we first started measuring it 30 years ago, and reached a record last summer (SH winter)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
You Mama| 1.23.09 @ 10:55AM
Interloper represents Global Warming interests. He posts cookie cutter posts, claiming facts where there are none, then substituting insults and phony "moral high ground" rationalizations to dodge any direct discussion of these so-called facts. Make any attempts to discuss or verify his "facts" and he becomes more dodgy than Osama Bin Laden.
He also comes across as this "guy with an opinion" though actually he spends his whole day posting these same comments on boards all across the internet, leading to the very obvious conclusion that he is a paid representative of this movement. And even while he attempts to call others out for the same thing, he'stoo gutless to admit it his own role .
Tom Moriarty| 1.23.09 @ 12:03PM
Speaking of belittling words aimed at anthropogenic global warming skeptics, see this gem from Discover Magazine:
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/shame-on-you-discover-magazine/
toni| 1.23.09 @ 1:11PM
No Globull Warming?
Didn't you all get the memo? There is no dissent in the age of Obama!
Now get on the bus for Gitmo, you dogs!
Interloper| 1.23.09 @ 4:38PM
Alex, I hope you figured this out for yourself, but will say it anyway. This is an extreme far Right site. You are not going to learn anything objective about any issue here. The consensus scientific opinion on global warming was released last year and is summarized many places on the Internet.
Ed| 1.23.09 @ 4:55PM
Interloper,
So your definition of objectivity is someone who agrees with you?
Ironically, there used to be a consensus that the world was flat, until the skeptics came along.
Science has nothing to do with consensus!
Tell me this, Einstein, in all of my above posts, is there a single error that you can point to? Just one? If not, keep your peace.
Ed| 1.23.09 @ 6:25PM
Inteloper,
I'll give you a hint, there is one error. I realized it right after I posted it. Are you smart enough to figure out what it is?
Nick| 1.23.09 @ 7:04PM
Ed,
On long term warming we are in agreement.
Someday we might have the technology to measure all the variables that contribute to the climate system. Then we'll get weather forecasts that predict more than a week.
James V. Yardley| 1.24.09 @ 12:48PM
I find the idea that while human beings cannot understand, control or manage a man-made creation like the economy, some feel that they are competent to manage and control a planetary climate and ecosystem. Well, boys and girls, can we all say "Hubris"?
Serik| 1.24.09 @ 3:46PM
Edward Lorenz discovered in 1963 that the weather [& thereby the climate] is a chaotic system. Such a system has no equilibrium steady state, is therefore eternally drifting, up or down or sideways, has been doing it for an estimated 4.7 billion years now. That means we have had climate changes all the time and will keep having them forever & ever more. And no, these drifts do not in any way correlate to partial pressure changes of trace gases in the atmosphere, be it CO2 or others.
All the attempts at projecting all kinds of warming or cooling "cycles" into the globally averaged temperature of averaged regional temperatures are just mickey mouse games, so are the "predictions", which have no physical validity. The "global warming" cult is a total fraud.
Nick| 1.24.09 @ 4:04PM
Serik,
Great comment.
The only problem is, to understand it, one has to question everything they were taught and learned growing up. Something it took me a long time to do. But I did. I call it growing up.
And you have to use reaon and logic, something in short supply these days.
Bob R | 1.24.09 @ 9:25PM
Re the Religion of Global Warming. Einstein had it right when he said that there are only 2 things that are infinite, the universe and human gullibility.
Serik| 1.25.09 @ 12:27AM
Nick - - you hit the nail right on the head [reason & logic in short supply] - there are always individuals who need some kind of idiotic dogma or debrained cult to engage in - be it anti nuclear - anti technology - & anti whatnot - -
Bob - - good quote from the real Albert - not the fraudulent Carbon Man - with his silly CO2 propaganda - his fastly rising ocean levels - and other lies - -
All - - the site climatesci.org seems to be valuable & useful - while realclimate.org seems to be a piece of junk - could that be correct ?? - I would appreciate opinions - -
question: why does Roger Pielke state that there is a need to limit "the amount of CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere by human activities" ?? - - I cannot see that need at all - because all of the carbon contained in carbon based fuels is part of the original global "carbon cycle" - we are just putting the carbon back to where it came from - CO2 is recycled right into building new trees and plants - - the carbon atom cycles forever between storing and releasing solar energy - the H-C bonds and the C-C bonds in the hydrocarbons [fuel for automobiles] and the carbohydrates [human food] are made by photo synthesis - that is, storage of solar energy - CO2 and H2O are the "feed" materials - increased CO2 availability accelerates plant & tree growth - without CO2 no plant can grow - I remember greenhouses [in Germany] - where they feed CO2 into the air to make the plants grow faster - solar insolation is the limiting factor - if you have abundant CO2 and H2O - -
so, why then should we limit the amount of this valuable plant food [CO2] being released into the atmosphere ?? - -
DJG| 1.25.09 @ 12:36PM
1 As a newcomer to the proposition that the science is NOT settled I need someone, (perhaps"Dubl" of 11:22 am on January 23), to list for me the physics I need to know if I am to comprehend the matter of global temperature change and its causes.
2 Please will they do me this considerable service without bias, one way or the other, making sure that they leave nothing out.
4 I am particularly interested in the
4.1 "space as a vacuum flask"
4.2 the complete misnomer of "greenhouse" (if it is a misnomer, though it looks as if IR does indeed treat greenhouses as if they weren't there).
4.3 How can a trace gas, (about four percent of all so-called greenhouse gases), of which humans create about nine parts in a thousand, (so that eg world aviation creates under three parts in one hundred thousand), have a preponderant effect?
4.4 Why has the "heating-up-first-FOLLOWED by CO2
3 Please, no mud slinging, name calling, opinion-presented-as-fact, or anything unscientific at all.
4 Please, above all, no pretend Politics.
5 I can't tell you how off-putting it has been to wade through all the bilious rant from both sides, and what a relief it is to read someone, anyone, who seems only to be looking for what is really happening.
DJG| 1.25.09 @ 12:58PM
Oi! Your expletive deleted website discharged my comment before I was ready.
I had almost finished but was in the middle of asking why the ice-core data "heating-up-FIRST-then-FOLLOWED-by-growth-in-atmospheric-CO2" clearly shown by the IPCC's own alarmist hockey stick (itself discredited as to methodology AND shape of prediction?) had not killed off the fear of CO2 as a CAUSE of global warming.
After all, "post hoc etc" is a well known fallacy but surely, until now, nobody has thought seriously of suggesting subsequent cause.
Hope this can be tacked ont my number 4 above.
Selah DJG
Tomas| 1.25.09 @ 4:02PM
First, Interloper claims "Global Warming is a fact."
Then he tries to smear the writer of the column by implying he's in the pocket of the coal industry.
Then, he belittles the site by saying it's a right-wing site, so everything posted here should be suspect.
Typical left-wing tactics. Declare the end of debate. When that doesn't work, smear the debater. When that doesn't work, smear the forum.
Nice try, Interloper, but you're only succeeding in making a fool of yourself. There has been tons of data and science presented here that dispute your GW contention, yet you provide NOTHING of substance in rebuttal.
As we all know, once a liberal loses a debate, he resorts to name-calling and leaves the room.
I fart in your general direction......
-
Leroy| 1.25.09 @ 5:54PM
When I see penguin on the menu down at Deshaun's Ribs, Greens, n'Toke Emporium, I'll buy into the GW thing. Until then, any increase in 'warming' cold easily be stopped dead in it's tracks if politicians would just shut the f**k up!
Bob R| 1.26.09 @ 2:15AM
Just about all geologists have some knowledge of past climates. I recognized the Kyoto Protocols aa pure BS when they first appeared over 10 years
ago. Why? Because I remembered practicall all of the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic, from 245 to 65million years ago) was quite warm because the configuration of the continents at that time allowed an equatorial ocean current to moderate climates to higher latitudes than at present. CO2 reached levels over 12 times todays values without any evidence of burning up the planet. In fact life thrived, birds evolved from reptiles, primitive mammals appeared, flowering trees and plants also. Wikipedia has abundant information on ancient climates (paleoclimatology). Try the Holocene (the last 14,000 years) since the latest glacial stage melted back, it shows several warm spells as warm as today interspersed with periods of cooling. A total embarrasment for the AGW crowd exposing their warming alarmism. AGW is simply policy, beloved by leftists, greens and politicians. The real SCIENCE can never support their claims. The opposing science and huge number of scientists against is found on www.
petitionproject.org
roger uselman| 1.26.09 @ 1:02PM
Global warming , people better start to worry about there drinking water . there is massive ton"s of garbage and toxic waste being put in landfill:s on a daily base , and t reated waste water with medication"s to toilet bowl cleaners that is getting pushed out into stream"s, rivers, lakes, ocean etc . the first job for any one with a brain is to protect our freash water supply . Because without clean water we are screwed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a lot of retail store are nothing more than toxic waste dump,it is about the money so the death of the world will be toxic water
Josh| 5.2.10 @ 1:26AM
Global warming , drinking water, the next generation of people all of these issues are terrible indeed , and the worst part of all of this is you can't show the value of any thing to any body , so save your comments people mother nature will take care of the problem , and I would like to say a few things to everybody out there maybe all of this is suppose to happen , and look at your self , do you even care ? what have you done to make this a better place , COMMENTS ARE CRAP GET OFF YOUR BUTT AND FIX THESE ISSUES ,AND OTHERS YOU HAVE ROLLING AROUND IN YOUR HEADS OR IT WILL ALL END . !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x2
serik| 1.26.09 @ 7:13PM
I think I might have an approximate answer for questions 4.3 & 4.4 by DJG - - see above - -
4.3 - it cannot - - the fraudulent "hockeystick" temperature curve [by Michael Mann] was produced for the purpose of showing a correlation between increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temparature in the lower tropospere - note that "global temperature does not physically exist - it is the global average of all regionally averaged averages [I am not sure how meaningful that actually is] - - so, the "hockeystick" was fabricated to show that correlation - because no such correlation could be found - - it is very plausible - based on various physical considerations - to postulate that none exists - that means, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between "global" temperature and CO2 in atmosphere - - see also book on "chaos" by Edward Lorenz - -
4.4 - atmosphere heatup is FOLLOWED by CO2 increase - with a time delay of 200 to 300 years - because the CO2 increase in the atmosphere comes from the oceans - CO2 dissolves in all bodies of water - the oceans are the biggest reservoir of CO2 - solubility decreases with increasing temperature of water - therefore, if ocean gets warmer [maybe by increased sunspot activity] - CO2 is released - the time delay is so long because it takes quite a while to get temp changes in the oceans - -
does this help ??
serik| 1.26.09 @ 7:20PM
roger u -
I think that you can always produce 100 % clean water by distillation - is not exactly cheap, though - although you can make it efficient by using "regenerative" heat exchanger arrangements - -
Bob R| 1.26.09 @ 8:40PM
Let's put this controversy on simple terms that even Interloper can understand. He believes in AGW theory, that man caused CO2 additions to our atmosphere is the cause of the warming. That is the theory proposed by science challenged Greenies with no valid science support, with the objective of hurriedly weaning mankind off of carbon based fuels. So this idea is POLICY only. The science is so simple it can be explained over a beer. Lets open a nice cold can of beer. That first burst of foam is due to to pressure release. You have a few swallows and the phone rings. In an hour or so you get back to your beer and discover it is FLAT and not fit to drink. The beer has warmed up and practically all the CO2 has escaped. Just like the oceans during a long warming period where most of the atmospheric CO2 is in storage in the cold deep waters. The naturally caused warming trend is the agent causing the release, and a history of past climates show no evidence of dangerous levels of heating.
Remember, science is rational but seldom as straughtforward as this example.
DJG| 1.29.09 @ 10:47AM
Serik, many thanks your 7:13PM of 26th, please see also mine 12:58PM 25th.
Question was why has the revealed truth not demolished total CO2 argument, not merely for alarmists but for EVERYONE. Surely we all know we are in a period that we think will turn out to have been a warming BUT NOBODY KNOWS WHY and NOBODY KNOWS IF ITS GONNA BE SIGNIFICANT.
People who DO know why and whether, please come across. Warming regards DJG
serik| 2.4.09 @ 2:37AM
DJG - thanks for all your inquisitive comments - -
here is what I know [=believe to be true] - - the global average of regionally averaged averages of ground temperatures [so-called “global temperature”] indicates that the recent heavily advertised warming trend has changed into a cooling trend in 1998. Satellite measurements for the lower troposphere indicate that we have reached the same “global temperature” we had in 1979, confirming the cooling trend.
Such drifting up or down [called “climate change”] has been going on forever. It is the natural behavior of a “chaotic” system. Even people who never heard about the natural carbon cycle or blackbody radiation are noticing that the wildly advertised “global warming crisis” is just what it was called on CNN about a year ago: a political hoax with no factual basis.
Ex-VP Al Gore’s preachings about a “tipping point” approaching are pure piffle. Chaotic systems have no “tipping point”. His assertion that “dirty CO2” has a “half life” of one century is really dumb. CO2 is a clean plant nutrient, and trace gases in the atmosphere do not have half lives. If they had a half life, that would imply that they are disappearing, which is not the case.
In Connecticut, I hear, efforts are underway to repeal recently enacted “climate legislation”.
the weather [& the climate] is a "chaotic" system - you can google Edward Lorenz [the essence of chaos] - or Ali Cambel [applied chaos theory] - to read about it - - chaotic systems do not have an "equilibrium steady state" - they may have attractors" - but they are eternally drifting - either slightly up or slightly down - duration of drift is not predictable - apart from the fraudulent hockey stick - no correlation between CO2 content of atmosphere an any warming trend has ever been found - -
so - "climate change" has been with us for the last 4.7 billion years - because our chaotic climate system keeps drifting - and it will stay that way - -
does this help?? - - best regards - serik - -
racso| 2.18.09 @ 7:49PM
Why is every article written on this site sound like whining? I thought right wing republicans were supposed to be tough. Every article is geared towards slandering the new regime that has been in power not even a month. Well here is tissue, wipe your collective nose's and get your asses to work, all this bitching will get us nowhere.
jgghg| 11.18.09 @ 8:10PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows
Trackback| 1.9.10 @ 10:44PM
credit repair arkansas, on credit repair arkansas, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fdsdfs| 1.11.10 @ 2:27AM
FLV to WMV Converter,
Free FLV to WMV converter
DKN| 2.24.10 @ 10:12PM
Never breath what you can't see.
But if you can see what you're breathing, you won't be for too much longer.
If you can't see what's in the water you're drinking, then it can't hurt you.
Right?
If there's a hole in the ozone layer...why can't we see it?
If the winters keep getting colder and colder, does this disprove global warming?
If the Conservatives keep blowing smoke up our asses, will that fix things?
wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 3:21AM
Blu ray Ripper for Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on ther Mac OS X
Poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 10:21PM
thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica