Special Report
The Amazing Revkin
Presto! Global warming consensus appears where there is none.
(Page 2 of 2)
Then there’s public opinion. In a January poll Rasmussen found that more respondents believed that global warming was due to planetary trends rather than human causes. And in another Rasmussen survey last month, 54 percent of respondents said the news media exaggerates threats to the planet from global warming. Pew also found in January that of 20 policy issues it asked people to rank in importance, global warming fell last. In addition, a poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research last summer found an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to spend any more on gasoline or electricity to address global warming, as is proposed under the Lieberman/Warner bill.
And finally, this week Gallup found a record-high 41 percent believe the media exaggerates the threat of global warming. “This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject,” the polling firm reported.
The Amazing Revkin noted the Gallup findings on his blog with a inquisitive “what’s going on” tone, inviting readers to fill up his comments section. Many fellow eco-toadies responded. Meanwhile the New York Times is selling both its building and its corporate jet, thanks to circulation and revenue declines. Go figure.
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 (75) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/13/the-amazing-revkin
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Peter Taber | 3.13.09 @ 7:21AM
There's a difference between Science and Politics: in good Science only one person has to be right.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.13.09 @ 7:36AM
A pretend crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
EricTheRed | 3.13.09 @ 8:26AM
I'm so sick and tired of these eco-Marxists and their sanctimony. Revkin dismissed the skeptics just like Al Gore does. Like his "confrontation" with Bjorn Lomborg a couple weeks ago. (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital)
Like a skilled wrestler caught in a half nelson, Gore twisted himself out of debating Lomborg on the facts by falling back on this amorphous “scientific community,” -- which writers like Revkin keep insisting exists.
Who exactly is this scientific community that has gone through this chapter and verse, Mr. Gore?
Would that be the scientists who were so sure about your theory that just two weeks ago you had to pull a slide from your indoctrination presentation because it misrepresented that facts?
Does your scientific community include your right-hand man James Hansen, who is so sure about AGW that he was forced to admit last fall that he fixed data by reusing September readings in October climate reports?
Is it the same scientific community that’s responsible for placing climate measuring stations in places that produces artificially higher temperatures?
This is really getting old.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary
Jason Gillman | 3.13.09 @ 8:33AM
You know.. A "Great Climate Debate" EVENT could generate a great deal of advertising revenue. The Marxists could pick 5 of their perceived best debaters, and We could pick 5 of our best. Let the chips fall where they may.. If they refuse to show...
I nominate Paul Chesser as one of the five.
Christopher Mims | 3.13.09 @ 10:33AM
What an amazingly convoluted steaming hill of dung you have concocted! I salute you, good sir, for the baroque contours of your elaborately overgrown self-delusion. I have some coastal property I would like to sell you -- at a discount rate! Surely you'd be a fool not to take me up on this offer.
CTG| 3.13.09 @ 10:44AM
Yes, faced with scientific evidence, let's just keep trumpeting that nothing is wrong. And make disparaging smart mouth remarks about those who say anything to the contrary.
Amazing that you could pull your head out of the sand long enough to write this article.
Denial Isa River| 3.13.09 @ 11:43AM
I hope you're kidding. Yes, being skeptical is healthy and maybe slightly cool, if that's what you're after. But being ignorant (covering your ears and yelling "la la la la") about this is just sad and bizarre. As science keeps proving you wrong you'll be hanging out on the fridge with the people who insist the Holocaust never happened. Enjoy.
S.L. Toddard| 3.13.09 @ 11:58AM
JEREMIAH AND BOB: FYI - I haven't been posting here in over a month, since maybe Feb 2nd. There is a troll here who adopts other people's names and posts as them. I never called Bob "blow-bob" or whatever. I saw you also got into some scraps with him, Jeremiah. None of it was me. I don't use terms like "lib" or whatever else this clown said.
Imagine doing that - being that pathetic? Logging on and pretending to be someone else you only know through the internet? It's sad and the sort of thing one would expect of a stalker.
Anyway, none of the posts under my name - S.L. Toddard - have actually been me since the first couple days of February. It's been that same, sad, lonely troll.
John II| 3.13.09 @ 11:58AM
To Mims, CTG, and Denial: When you're up against hardcore political opportunists who use "science" to push a cheap political agenda, and who have proven themselves again and again to be reflexively hostile to counterpoint--why, then, mockery becomes an appropriate response.
The devil, Erasmus says, is the proud spirit--he cannot endure to be mocked. Neither can Al Gore.
stewpified| 3.13.09 @ 12:16PM
I'll take you up on that, Mimsy. Nothing like buying low in a panic. Of course any leverage in the pricing of this transaction you might have had is in direct opposite correlation to your conviction on the issue--dumbass.
The problem with you "beyond debaters" is the messy little item that the theory is based on a prediction: i.e. we have to take action on this now, to prevent the castatrophe tomorrow! Well, since this theory doesn't become "fact" until sometime in the future, IT'S ALWAYS OPEN TO DEBATE!
And "good" science welcomes dissent, as fending off the counter-arguments strengthens the hypothesis. Unfortunately, since AGW is nothing more than a prediction of consequences, the best, and undeniable counter-argument is: Global warming believers have to admit that they COULD BE wrong.
Of course you could be wrong, we'll have to wait and see.
The other problem is that the political blow hards that have taken what started as a scientific issue and turned it into a political one and can't help themselves from delving into hyperbole while selling this snake oil.
So now Gore keeps re-setting the deadline for all this havoc to occur closer and closer to the present day. Thus, we'll all live to see if this pans out or not.
We "deniers" have comfort that the last two years have been record cold, and that the last 10 have produced sideways, not upward trends.
Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb" caused quite a stir in it's day, then the end-point that he focused on came and passed--without world starvation due to overpopulation.
Cooler heads realize that the AWG arguments will fizzle and the furor will be difused when this bomb also proves to be a dud over time.
Stmich (Denier Boy) rick| 3.13.09 @ 12:43PM
Come on everyone, admit it...
...wasn't it Algore the giveaway when this thing really took off; I mean, even I was neutral on ozone holes until I saw him setting up a Religion based on rising sea level models.
Then I started to read serious books about the topic.
Paul from SA| 3.13.09 @ 1:29PM
I am frustrated.... I have smart, highly educated friends, extremely competent in their career fields and yet they believe in global warming. After spending one minute discussing the subject with them, I realize they know nothing about the science and simply recite what they've seen and heard in the dramatized headlines from the mainstream media.
Al Gore and the global warmists claim the debate is over, yet many prominent scientists and a large percentage of our population disagree or remain unconvinced. A televised debate would provide the ultimate opportunity to convince skeptics and deniers, once and for all, that man-made CO2 emissions are causing our planet’s temperature to rise, which will lead to catastrophic consequences, and that we must act now. Despite repeated invitations and challenges, they refuse. Why?
It’s simple – they would be exposed as a frauds. There is no correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and global temperatures. In a debate, after they finish accusing their opponents of being corrupt and inferior, and the time comes to provide actual evidence, they would be exposed as con artists, because there is no scientific evidence to support global warming theory.
Bob Abouey | 3.13.09 @ 1:36PM
I would think that we should also worry about methane and its effect on climate. My evidence has shown that these emissions increase after patronage of mexican restaurants. Thus I propose in the spirit of controlling man-made climate change we also cap and trade emissions from gastrointestinal reactions to mexican food. My scientific data is irrefutable and I have a consensus. By the way the consensus also believes that the cap and trade charges must increase if alcohol is served in conjunction with these eco-terrorizing meals.
The time to argue my findings has passed. Without immediate actions the damage may become catastrophic. More evidence can be found at any Taco Bell drive thru open after midnight.
stmich (DenierBoy) rick| 3.13.09 @ 1:44PM
Paul, isn't it an interesting reaction when you reveal yourself to be a skeptic to folks like your highly educated friends? First, they mentally review their own level of educational completion or status compared to yours.
After this awkward silence and mumbling about how ALL the scientists agree, they usually cave with, 'well, you're not FOR pollution, are you?'
In conclusion you will hear about how great it is that Obama is putting an end to political (Bush) interference in government-paid-for-science.
We live in historic times.
stmich (DenierBoy) rick| 3.13.09 @ 1:51PM
Hey CTG ( Climatology To Go?)
What is NOT wrong is saving trillions of borrowed dollars by not barking up trees made of manure.
Why not focus on poisonous emissions instead of carbon? Again, it is NOT a pollutant and cannot be empirically linked to planetary climate changes.
It is only linked to Algore's bank account through carbon credit scams.
Paul from SA| 3.13.09 @ 1:54PM
stmich, I am not a skeptic and did not mean imply such. Global warming is a hoax. I believe this is a political issue perpertrated by liberals to control people.
Forgive me if I am not the best writer. Forget the hyperbole, go straight to the science and answer this:
Can you provide any data that shows a correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and global temperatures (besides just the brief time period between 1975 and 1998)?
Joe| 3.13.09 @ 2:02PM
What the response to this article proves is that we still have a long way to go to get these brain dead government educated people out of the sand they have their head in. GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXSIT. MOST SCIENCIST IN THE FIELD AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stan Redmond| 3.13.09 @ 2:35PM
EVEN IF there is man made global warming (which I am not accepting) why is it absolutely certain to be catastrophic beyond belief? The oceans will rise 100s of feet. Polar bears will be melting in the streets of Barrow in January. Droughts, super storms, etc etc? I have only heard ONE environmentalist person say it will actually be a good thing because it will expand agriculture opportunities. Panic sells.
Marc Jeric| 3.13.09 @ 2:54PM
This problem must be looked at in a historical perspective. First there was catastrophic global cooling scam of the 1970's (see Newsweek April 28, 1975); when that marxist attempt did not work there came the global warming hoax of the 1990's; and now, after 11 years of considerable cooling we are faced with the "climate change" flimflam. Well, whatever works! Led by the carbon credit tax-evasion Al Gore, the inventor of the Internet and the re-inventor of the government (did you forget that?) we are about to enter the marxist heaven where the government employees union leaders will become our captains of industry.
Pingback| 3.13.09 @ 3:41PM
Where is Public Opinion? | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.13.09 @ 3:51PM
Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Paul from SA| 3.13.09 @ 4:11PM
To Marc Jeric:
Exactly!
Many of the same people making those claims in the 70's are the same ones behind today's global warming; in fact many were responsible for many of the 70's scares (pesticides, food additives and preservatives, vitamins, cancer scares, acid rain, ozone hole, coffee, sugar, salt,... and then later AIDS).
In fact these global climate scares have been traced back to the early 1900's and keep recurring every 30-40 years. It's amazing to read how the headlines each time are almost exactly as they are today, except they interchange the words warming and cooling each time. The tactics are the same everytime:
* experts predict planetary catastrophe
* all scientists agree
* man is responsible
* we must change right now
* the ones making the predictions are always liberal ("we're superior, we want to save the children and the planet, believe us, do not question us, follow our instructions").
roy| 3.13.09 @ 4:34PM
Wow, I'm amazed that it took all of 7 comments before someone associated being a climate realist with Holocaust denial. Gosh, I love the way the alarmist have a conversation.
Russell Seitz| 3.13.09 @ 4:53PM
How underwhelming that the 650 , seconded by 9,208 & 3/4 ( or is it 31,000) should provide the conferees with a grand total of 1 , bona fide peer-reviewed atmospheric geophysics paper for Roy Spencer to re-read at this year's event.
Chesser should betake himself to a real live American Geophysical Union meeting for a change, instead of recycling the output of the American Institute of Petroleum Herpetologists
If this is the best they can do , Heartland is simply making life easier for Al Gore.
Larry| 3.13.09 @ 6:11PM
I checked out the link to Revkin's blog on the latest Gallup poll on the rising number of skeptics. He mentions that the group that is still the "most likely" to believe that global warming is underestimated is that of 18 to 29 year-olds.
Yes, Andy, because you and other journalists of your ilk can pander successfully to a mostly ignorant and inexperienced audience. Inexperienced especially in the ways in which you mislead your audience as to the facts. As long as the youth of this country, who lack the wisdom to know better, drive the train in the court of public opinion, we will see more and more climate change nonsense coming out of Washington.
stmich (Denier Boy)rick| 3.13.09 @ 7:44PM
Paul; read my post again.
We agree, already!
Donald Sammis| 3.13.09 @ 8:59PM
One person being right trumps any consensus
Alan Brooks| 3.13.09 @ 10:00PM
the audience today IS ignorant, but has no lack of experience.
in 1967 a guy at our house told me his 16 year old daughter had "alot of experience"...
Paul from SA| 3.13.09 @ 10:19PM
stmich, I read your post again and you're right. Thanks.
Alan Brooks| 3.14.09 @ 12:01AM
climate change? It's good for finances--it made Gore a billionaire,
yes, with a 'B'. he's got somewhere around a billion.
Ken Roberts | 3.14.09 @ 9:17AM
Gore and his followers should be in federal prison for perpetrating a hoax and scaring young school children . the money Gore has made from global warming scare should be distributed among the older crowd that has paid higher energy cost over the last ten years .
JP| 3.14.09 @ 9:20AM
"How underwhelming that the 650 , seconded by 9,208 & 3/4 ( or is it 31,000) should provide the conferees with a grand total of 1 , bona fide peer-reviewed atmospheric geophysics paper for Roy Spencer to re-read at this year's event. "
Ah yes, the Peer Review mantra. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to whip that old line out. Normally it is the 1st or 2nd post on a thread. Of course, peer review isn't what people think it is. The reviewers do not go through the papers other than to do sanity checks. Other than that, peer review in climate science is, in the words of Dr Wegman, a social network where reviewers trade papers and affix thier "thumbs up" on each others articles.
Funny, what happens when Climate Audit gets a chance to at least go through the data and statistics of a study. Whether it is MBH9x, NOAA and NASA's temperature analysis, or the Steig-Mann paper on Antartic Warming, the study is embarrassingly wrong -as in full of errors. The authors usually quietly correct the most obvious problems without a peep of acknowledgement from the Climate Audit (see Gavin Schmidt recent antics concerning the Steig-Mann paper).
The sad reality is, peer review is a joke. Most Alarmists now don't even attempt to defend thier science anymore. They just take the checks from the goverment and private foundations and churn out mountains of useless studies.
Pingback| 3.14.09 @ 12:20PM
Where is Public Opinion? | Global Warming Skeptics links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
frost| 3.14.09 @ 12:21PM
And, oh, on a related item...? Drove over to Phoenix for a few days to see some family, and in so doing, saw those (supposed) wind turbines, designed to "supply power"??? They're in the Fort Stockton area...
At least of 60% of those I saw were NOT operating. Another lack-of-maintenence government boondoggle maybe?
I say "at least" - - perhaps four in ten were "working" (and killing PETA's birdies in the process?) the rest, just gathering dust....
PATHETIC. Nothing less. And, when you consider the sizable costs, plus the fact that much of them appear imported from other countries? GadZooks!
They scope out the land, buy or lease it (after lengthy/COSTLY consultants make their spendy determinations -- engineer the plans and have the crap fabricated, seemingly from some foreign country (gee, can't make 'em here and give the employment... etc...?) -- shipped to our US from (God knows) wherever... unloaded and stacked up -- then transported from the Freeport port to the sites, which have presumably been cleared and made ready (with roads, a few wires to transfer the juice, etc.) with "pilot" cars, all burning fossil fuel in multiple to just get it there -- then gets assembled, right?
And maybe 40% of them actually work?
Excuse me, I think I may be ill -- again...
Russell Seitz| 3.14.09 @ 1:21PM
No , J.P. , it's the 'scientific evidence ' mantra, incorporating contempt for those who refuse to answer the objections reviewers raise.
Speaking of mantra's , why do you guy fixate so a bad proxy data splice Mann was compelled to correct in a matter of weeks a decade ago by the editors of the peer peer reviewed journal in which it appeared ?
Stop pounding the table and invoking statisticans , and try reading the literature itself for a change . If you can.
haunyocker| 3.14.09 @ 1:27PM
TO: Christopher Mims| 3.13.09 @ 10:33AM
......... I have some coastal property I would like to sell you -- at a discount rate! Surely you'd be a fool not to take me up on this offer.
Isn't it interesting that the property you are trying to sell is exactly the same crap you are trying to sell when it comes to global warming. You are trying to sell non-existent property and a false GW premise. Seems to prove there is no validity to global warming, just as you have no "coastal land" to sell. You are an Al Gore clone promoting pipe-dreams, the difference is that Gore's a lot smarter than you because he's making a ton of money with his lies. You are doing nothing but proving your ineptness. But, of course, GW greenies are the purveyors of deceit thus becoming the very fools you accuse others of being.
Strummer| 3.15.09 @ 8:49AM
Wow, this is clearly a site populated by people who want to get their climate info not from people who study the climate, but from petroleum geologists, astronomers, meteorologists, and hypocritical conservative talk show hosts. The fact is that as time goes on, more and more scientists who look at the data agree that global warming is going on and that humans have at least some impact on it. I'm supposed to be impressed that the Czech president headed up a conference of less than 1000 skeptics??? Are you serious??? Again... Wow.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.15.09 @ 6:59PM
The read of the hour.
http://www.craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=167&subgroupID=14
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who worked on parts of the Kyoto protocol has stated, "The UN-IPCC [International Panel on Climate Control] science panel, which is most often sited by supporters of this proposal, based its conclusions on three major claims. And although widely publicized, none of them pass muster. They have been or are being disproved by actual data." Singer lists some examples:
-The IPCC claims the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1,000 years. This is based entirely on a manhandling of the available data. Two Canadian scientists have just published a detailed audit that exposes a shocking set of errors; it permits anyone to independently verify their counter-claim.
-The IPCC claims the climate is currently warming. This is based solely on surface thermometer data. It is contradicted not only by superior observations from weather satellites, but also by independent data from radiosondes carried on weather balloons. In addition, proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, etc. confirm that there is no current significant warming.
-The IPCC claims climate models, which incorporate the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, can accurately reproduce the temperature record of the past 100 years. That assertion is inaccurate. True, the models employ enough adjustable parameters to mimic the global average temperature, but once the record is deconstructed according to latitude and altitude, any agreement with model results disappears.
If the earth is warming, and some parts of it might be, it has little to do with mankind’s activity. CO2 and methane are the evil greenhouse gases that will inflict disaster upon the globe. Yet 95 % of CO2 emissions are from natural biomass and much needed for plant life to survive. If you wiped out mankind you would only affect 5 % of such emissions. Climate patterns have more to do with the earth’s relationship to the Sun than anything else. Yet the entire Kyoto-IPCC analysis makes no reference whatsoever to this basic fact. It is a porridge of scientific mush that if implemented would have no impact on average global temperatures.
Kyoto protocols would not affect the climate but they would decrease a rich country’s GDP’s by about 2 %. As many economists have stated it makes no sense to impose economic burdens on today's generation in order to raise the welfare of people alive in 100 years who will be significantly wealthier, and far less likely to be affected by the vicissitudes of climate than we are today. Not only is the argument morally bankrupt, but the underlying economic analysis is completely invalid. As noted by Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, "The problem with Kyoto-type emission reduction plans is that the marginal costs rise exponentially and the benefits, if there even are any, rise linearly. So no matter which angle you look at it carbon dioxide restrictions on even a modest scale use up more social resources than any benefits they generate."
Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, makes the same point. Lomborg states that the worldwide cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be about $350 billion per year beginning in 2010. Beginning in 2050, the cost rises to $900 billion per year. The cost of predicted global warming, if climate models are to be believed, would be about $900 billion in 2100. But even if fully implemented, Kyoto would only delay the predicted amount of warming by a mere six years. The US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration analysis reiterates Lomberg’s claim. The USDEEIA estimates that the cost of Kyoto to the U.S. alone would be about $300 billion per year or 2 .5 % of GDP. This loss of GDP over a 10 year period would be triple the loss experienced during the Great Depression, which saw a drop in GDP of about 10 percent.
Kyoto is socialist politics at its worst. Bad science, weeping for the environment, hand wringing over rich country guilt and immature politicians gushing about our children’s future makes for a fantasy land of poor policy. Rejecting outright any attempt to infringe on national sovereignty and national prosperity by overzealous and corrupt international organizations is a primary responsibility of adult governments in the richer countries. Reject the childish fantasy of global warming, and say good riddance to world socialist government – and equal poverty for all.
http://www.globalwarming.org/index.php
JP| 3.15.09 @ 7:01PM
Russell,
Before you embarrass yourself anymore, let me remind you that MBH9X is a STATISTICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE TEMPERATURE PROXIES. And I have read it, along with his ficticious PCAs. And no, he didn't correct a bad temperature splice a decade ago. Not sure where you got that. To this date he failed to answser statistical critiques (numerous made by a world renown statistician Dr Wegman) concering his R2 statistics, failures to answer critiques arising out of both red noise tests and Monte Carlo tests; serious divergence issues with current temperature trends ( his Bristlecone proxies cannot be calibrated to local temps), and he failed to explain how the Foxtail Bristlecone in California can correlate to global temps -something that is impossible. None of these critiques were issued a decade ago, but in 2004-2005.
Perhaps you should pick up a book on Principle Component Analysis and study the work yourself instead of making up nonsense.
Vlad-the-Impaler| 3.15.09 @ 11:58PM
CTG and Denial:
Wipe your noses before commenting. I guess you think 17% of scientists is a concensus? That's the percentage of "believers" in man-made Global Warming. Were you aware that 90% of greenhouse gas is water vapor? YOU ALL BETTER STOP WATERING YOUR LAWNS! What is Al Gore's scientific background? I've been in the weather field since 1977, and they can't get computer models to forecast weather for a week accurately, and you think they can forecast for a hundred years? The media have turned into a bunch of whores along with that 17% of the scientific community that "believes".
TokyoTom | 3.16.09 @ 11:34AM
Paul, let`s talk inconvenient - BP and others are having difficulty operating in the Arctic because the permafrost is melting, and Russia wants to stake claims to the whole thing; China & India think carbon restrictions are needed, but want the US to go first; and Exxon@s Rex Tillerson and world`s biggest insurers are all supporting carbon pricing.
Oh, and one other small thing, all you so-called market fundamentalists out there - can you please show me the property rights and pricing mechanisms that give us confidence that we won`t trash the oceans, climate etc. ?
Thanks,
TT
JP| 3.16.09 @ 2:50PM
Tokyo Tom,
The last time I looked (Friday), the high temp in the Siberian Artic was -24 deg C. I don't think there is much permafrost melting there. Come to think of it, the Siberian Tundra had only 10 days last year where it got above freezing. Try new talking points.
BTW, property rights are one of the enumerated rights in our Constitution. Hands off.
russell Seitz| 3.17.09 @ 1:08AM
JP, Have you or Chesser ever asked yourselves how the side of the debate you’ve framed looks to a disinterested , but scientifically astute observer?
It is first and foremost , a stone bore, forever repeating the same paragraphs from the same playbook.
While Team Gorr clearly wish to ignore some of what the scientific literature contains, non-anthropogenic rises and falls in temperature being particularly inconvenient , Chesser’s team positively needs to ignore most of it, including the plain vanilla physics of radiative forcing , and the quantitative strength of CO2 as a heat absorber. How many times have we seen repeated the assertion that since CO2 is reckoned in partd per million, climate can’t be changing on acccount of it ? None of those adducing that argument seem to have tried such simple experiments as adding 350 parts per million of ink to their washwater, or 350 parts per million of strychnine to their ice tea..
This anti-realism , and its corollary- when you can’t argue with the data, get a statistician to discount it, is not something you should try in defending a doctoral thesis, let alone replying to reviewer’s criticisms of a scientific paper.
When the ‘hockey stick ‘ broke , the referees at Nature kept their sticks on the ice and forced the authors to publish a correction. That was ten years ago , in a debate about palaeoclimate proxy data about as relevant to the future impact of CO2 as the Teapot Dome scandal to a discussion of oil imports . Few non sequiturs are worthy of inflation into big lies, and Chesser deserves to be sent to the K-Street penalty box just as Mann was censured by Nature.
I hold no brief for palaeoclimtology as the key to the future but if you don't like Mann’s software, take it up with Mann-- http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/
Steve | 3.17.09 @ 9:44PM
Geez, Mr. Matthews. I see that you are all over the place vomiting your bile. Interestingly, none of which seems to be listening to your hate and bigotry.
Steve | 3.17.09 @ 9:49PM
I listened to the Heartland Institute's clueless climate denialists conference and must say that if Paul Chesser considered the event a party ... well, he must have had an extremely dull life so far.
That conference was pathetic ... including only the old, the irrelevant and the insane.
Lord Christopher Monckton called himself a "Christian citizen of a Christian nation" and ended the conference with ... a ... prayer!
In other words: The climate conference was a Christian fundamentalist revival, not a science conference.
As if to get his lunatic credentials, the British Rush Limbaugh brought upon the Obama birther controversy.
Lord Monckton isn't a scientist. He is a fundamentalist and he isn't sane.
Yet more drivel. I suppose that being Margaret Thatcher's science adviser doesn't qualify to make an informed opinion? I guess we can say the same thing about John "The Populationist" Holdren, then.
At least Lord Monckton is more qualified and educated than Al "Carbon Credits" Gore, who is afraid to debate anyone on this farce.
Michael Patmas| 4.9.09 @ 11:40AM
I'm confused. The earth has seen at least 3 and more likely 6 ice ages, at least one of which had the polar ice caps extending to nearly the equator. Between these ice ages were interglacial periods so warm that the poles have been tropical forrests (ever wonder why there is oil up there?). The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago and the earth has been warming ever since. The earth's climate is always changing and has never been static. Why do we now assume that we can or must stop climate change?
Pingback| 4.20.09 @ 7:35AM
Yes, It Does links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.27.09 @ 4:08PM
Reagan’s Climate Demotion | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 6.29.09 @ 7:42PM
Yedda: Waxman, on MarineReconDad's questions on Yedda - People. Sharing. Knowledge., links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Adult Toys | 9.14.09 @ 3:55PM
You're not kidding about "amazing".
Adult Toys
Pingback| 11.23.09 @ 10:01AM
Amazing Revkin Hard at Work | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 9:56AM
Andy Did Something Good Last Night | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 11:38AM
The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy « Watts Up With That? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.24.09 @ 12:53PM
Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
hfghfg| 11.26.09 @ 9:40PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows