Special Report
You’ve Got to Have Heartland
Man-made global warming proved wrong — a report from the Heartland Institute’s New York conference.
The chief source of hysteria over possible man-made global warming has been the United Nations and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The panel’s own climate models project that if man’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases were causing global warming, there would be a particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude, producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth’s surface. Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be cooling.
All scientists, both the alarmist warm-mongers and the pacifist cooler heads, agree that this temperature pattern would result if man were causing global warming, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would prevail in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now enable us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively.
The observed result is just the opposite of the modeled global warming fingerprint pattern. The data from weather balloons shows no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot. The satellite data confirms this result, no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint.
Top Scientists
This was the most important point made by the brilliant scientists from around the world who attended the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York City last week. Those scientists included, among many others who deserve to be household names: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and the founder and first director of the National Weather Satellite Service: Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, formerly a professor of dynamic meteorology and director of the Center for Earth and Planetary Physics at Harvard; Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite; Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists; David Douglass, professor of physics at the University of Rochester, and winner of numerous prestigious Science awards, and Syun-ichi Akasofu, professor of physics and former director of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska, winner of awards from the Royal Astronomy Society of London, Japan Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
There is no collection of scientists in the world smarter and better than these and the others who spoke at and attended the conference. Several argued further that the entire temperature pattern of the 20th century follows normal climate variations, rather than CO2 emissions. Temperatures in the U.S., which has the most thorough and consistent temperature record and historically the most CO2 emissions, were stable until 1920, increased some in the 1920s, and then soared to produce the hottest decade of the century during the 1930s. The climate then cooled during most of the period from 1940 until about 1977, except for a brief spike from about 1949 to 1953. Temperatures climbed upward from 1977 until 1998, except for a sharp downturn from about 1988 until about 1995. Temperatures are down over the past decade.
Yet CO2 increased continuously throughout the century, which should have produced a trend of consistent temperature increases if it were causing global warming. Several presenters at the conference argued that the more complex actual temperature variations were fully explained by natural, long-term temperature patterns. The temperature increases until 1940 reflected mostly the continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ran roughly from the early 1400s to the late 1800s. The pattern since then is consistent with the variations of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a 20 to 30 year up and down variation in sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean produced by deep sea ocean currents.
Global Cooling
Moreover, several presenters argued that due to these natural variations we have already entered a period of long-term cooling that will last at least another 20 years, and maybe more. Indeed, satellite measured temperatures show that the global atmosphere has cooled over the last 10 years, with the decline in temperatures accelerating over the last two years. As Lord Christopher Monckton, who also spoke at the conference, has said, “Global warming stopped 10 years ago. It hasn’t gotten warmer since 1998….In fact in the last 7 years, there has been a downturn in global temperatures equivalent on average to about…one degree Fahrenheit per decade. We’re actually in a period…of global cooling.”
What portends longer-term cooling is that Pacific temperatures have now turned cold, which is likely to continue for another 15-20 years given past trends. Moreover, we have now experienced an extended period of minimal sun spot activity. If that continues, we may suffer an even longer cooling period, perhaps even a return to the Little Ice Age, as has happened in the past when sunspots declined for an extended period.
Just a couple of days ago, a separate, independent, peer reviewed study appeared in Geophysical Research Letters from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. It concluded as well that the temperature variations of the 20th century were all explained by natural causes rather than human CO2 emissions. The study also concluded that the warming period of the late 20th century is over and an extended cooling period lasting another 20 years or so has begun.
Climate Science
Several other presenters at the Heartland conference went on to explain in detail why the models used by the UN to predict global warming and associated catastrophes are so wrong. As one explained, slight exaggerations in each of several variables when multiplied together add up to huge final errors. Another explained that the models assume that heat resulting from increased CO2 reduces clouds, further increasing temperatures, but satellite data now show that the clouds sharply reduce heat produced by CO2, resulting in a strong negative feedback, which leaves increased CO2 too weak to produce significant global warming. Other variables expected to produce strong positive feedback effects increasing global warming resulting from CO2 were shown to have little or no effect, or even a negative effect.
Other well-known facts further support the careful, logical, soft-spoken scientists at the Heartland conference, whose presentations should soon be available on video at www.heartland.org. Global temperatures were warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, a span of several hundred years around 1000 A.D. Even higher temperatures prevailed during a period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum, which ran roughly from 8,000 years ago (6000 B.C.) to 4,000 years ago (2000 B.C.). In fact, temperatures were higher than today during most of the period from 9000 B.C. to the birth of Christ.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (159) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/18/youve-got-to-have-heartland
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sweet Home, Alabama
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- There’s Something About Cambridge
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
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
mteachjw| 3.18.09 @ 6:44AM
DM
Sounds like you are doing just what he said. You are using name calling and "shouting down" rather than debating the facts. He at least seemed to be presenting facts. Where are your facts and their source. Oh yeah, I forgot, according to you guys the "debate" is over and all has been decided regardless of the facts.
Deborah | 3.18.09 @ 8:09AM
Liberals and leftists and global warming radicals (but I repeat myself) are doing what they always do. Ignoring the facts. No debate, no questioning, no one else's opinions or facts are relevant. Just FYI...these are scientists in the correct field who have put their FACTS together, not the propaganda put forth by those who want to run other people's lives.
Just as Obama's motto should be -- "Do as I say. Don't question. Unity by force," so should the leftists who want to take over the world via globaloney.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 8:11AM
Global Warming is a better scam then the one Bernie Madoff created. The reason for that is it involves scientific theories, not facts. The original premises and theories can be changed as facts arise to prove the falsehoods. It is also a religion, because those who dispute it are accused of heresy.
In March 2007 members of the prestigious New York Debating Society held a debate on Global Warming. Before the debate 57% of the well educated, well informed and well heeled audience believed in the merits of Global Warming. After the debate the number in the audience who believed dropped to 42%. Al Gore claims the debate is over, but he is a sycophant to money, lying and doing whatever it takes to keep the fools running to his false cause. Here are the facts about the debate. Let's see Brent throw this group under the bus. Three knowledgeable persons from both sides presented their case and when it was over, the false premise of Global Warming lost. Wake up Brent, a revolt against ignorance and arrogance is coming.
The second link disputes the IPCC findings and conclusion.
http://www.demanddebate.com/globalwarming.htm
Claims by global warming alarmists that “the debate is over” were belied on March 14, 2007 when an audience at a prestigious "New York debating society (Intelligence Squared), whose majority overwhelmingly believed in catastrophic manmade global warming prior to the debate, dramatically reversed position and declared three prominent climate realists the winners in a debate on climate change science against three prominent global warming alarmists.
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12
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
Deborah | 3.18.09 @ 8:22AM
By the way, Mr. Ferrara, thank you for this report. You're doing the job the American mainstream media won't do. Just one of many reasons why people are continuing to tune them out and laugh at them behind (and in front) of their backs.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 8:26AM
David Matthews: That quote you lifted was from the scientists who put that article together. I am more like Robert Frost, who believes the world can end in fire and ice. The whole point of my post is that Global Warming is a religion, not a science.
Like all religions, it must be defended, and against all heretics.
Joe| 3.18.09 @ 8:29AM
Face it, the public is catching on to this hoax as the global temperatures cool for the 8th straight years, since the Gore movie at a rate of 11F per century. With the sun in a deep slumber and the oceans back in their cold made as they were from the 1940s to 1970s when the earth cooled, the cooling trend will continue for decades. The carbon focus is misguided as the temperature except for the warm phase from 1979 to 1998 do not correlate positively with temperatures. CO2 is not a pollutant but a valuable plant fertilizer. Blessed with a little warming and more CO2, NASA has shown considerable greening of the mid-latitude growing areas the last few decades enabling us to feed millions more people. The unrealistic energy policy thrust down our throats by the enviros will lead to major problems as the earth cools. We need conservation and innovation but fossil fuels and nuclear needs to be part of the solution.
Deborah | 3.18.09 @ 8:32AM
"All scientists, both the alarmist warm-mongers and the pacifist cooler heads, agree that this temperature pattern would result if man were causing global warming, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would prevail in the atmosphere. Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern. Higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now enable us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively.
"The observed result is just the opposite of the modeled global warming fingerprint pattern. The data from weather balloons shows no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot. The satellite data confirms this result, no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint. "
Sounds pretty factual.
"Just a couple of days ago, a separate, independent, peer reviewed study appeared in Geophysical Research Letters from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. It concluded as well that the temperature variations of the 20th century were all explained by natural causes rather than human CO2 emissions. The study also concluded that the warming period of the late 20th century is over and an extended cooling period lasting another 20 years or so has begun. "
More facts. Just because you refuse to read or to comprehend facts, doesn't mean they aren't there.
Freya| 3.18.09 @ 8:42AM
Regarding the "independent, peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters", given the track record of skeptical claims of this sort, one would feel a lot better if a title or authors' name were provided so as to be able to check it out for oneself. It is new, so the information provided might be enough, but it's still a rather glaring omission.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 8:43AM
Asking someone to make a pronouncement as to whether the globe is warming or not, indicates to me that your time would be better spent bashing your head into a concrete wall for 10 minutes.
Once you've completed that exercise, then you can ask yourself if the globe is warming or cooling or whatever, and get a multitude of answers.
Freya| 3.18.09 @ 8:47AM
Joe,
"the global temperatures cool for the 8th straight years,"
Have you looked at a chart of world temperature over the past ten years, any chart, from any source? Given your statement above, obviously not.
Freya| 3.18.09 @ 9:08AM
"to why a trillion dollars or more in additional costs on our economy to fight global warming, as well as a sharp decline in the American standard of living, and losses of several million jobs and trillions in lost economic growth"
If that's the case, maybe someone can explain to me how it is that over the last decade, the UK, Sweden, Germany, France, and Denmark all cut carbon emissions to below 1990 levels, and in the same period, the GDP of each country grew faster than that of the United States.
EricTheRed | 3.18.09 @ 9:19AM
To "David Matthews": What a busy little beaver you have been this morning. In all of your comments you have dismissed GW skeptics as ignorant Christian-fundamentalist creationist rubes. (I'm Jewish and a skeptic, so how does that fit into your little world?). By this you have done nothing to support your position, only shown how intolerant, hateful, and disdainful you are toward people you disagree with. Your blanket, bigoted insults ("Conservatives are known for their scientific illiteracy"?) do nothing but expose what an intolerant and illiterate *you* are, my unhinged friend.
Yet, between insulting the religious background of some--but not all--GW skeptics and calling Mr. Ferrara a liar providing "mish mash" and whatever, you have failed to provide one single concrete example of what Ferrara has lied about and on what points he is mistaken.
So go ahead. Pick something. Stop being a name-calling hate-spewing leftist for one minute, and actually debate the issue with us scientifically illiterate conservatives.
And if you can't, stop wasting our time and go back to your similarly hateful friends at DK or PuffHo.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary
Robert Rosencrans| 3.18.09 @ 9:24AM
David Matthews: I gave you the answer you deserved. Which is more then you deserve. You little Soros troll you.
JP| 3.18.09 @ 9:25AM
According to both the UAH and RSS satellite sounding data, the earth has cooled slightly since 1998 (about .01 deg C). This takes into account both land and sea.
However, the earth doesn't warm and cool evenly. The Nothern Hemisphere has warmed since 1998 (about 60% over land, 40% over oceans); the Southern Hemisphere has cooled. The SH is 85% ocean.
According to the JPL, the oceans have cooled about .02 deg C since 2003, with most of the cooling coming from the SH.
The positive AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) has produced was very warm anomaly over the Atlantic, which has strengthened the inflow of warm tropical waters into the North Atlantic and Artic Oceans. This has resulted in spikes in tropical cyclones from 1995-2005, as well as significant melting of artic sea ice.
This anomaly has also caused the Atlantic wing of the Hadley Cell to extend itself into southwestern Europe and East Asia, which have allowed positive temp anomalies there in recent years.
To go a step further, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has gone from positive (warm) to negative (cold). The PDO is nothing more than a residual of ENSO(El Nino Southern Oscillation). Between the PDO and AMO there exist a huge heat pump which is responsible for the transportation of tropical water and air to the poles. Both of these were locked in a positive (warm phase) from 1994-2007. The PDO was positive from 1976 to 2007, the AMO has been positive since 1994, and will remain so for another 5-8 years.
What this means is that our global climate was dominated by an amplifiication of the tropical Hadley Cell (front loaded with lots of warm air). For 31 years there was an excess of warm air as mirroed by a)a spike in global temps and b)several intense El Nino events. It appears that the oceans have begun exhausting this excess heat energy as early as 2003 or as late as 2007.
Nither the the convuluted surface data from Hansen (funny how NASA refuses to use satellite data from satellites they launched), nor phoney proxy reconstructions can refute this data.
Owyheewine| 3.18.09 @ 9:35AM
Looks like a lot of shrill nonsense from the big liberal. As a Chemical Engineer with a 35+ year career that involved a real understanding of thermodynamics and complex models, I think I can speak with a little authority.
First, the article makes a significant error when it talks about heat produced by CO2. Even the Gorbots don't say that. They say that those diabolical little molecules arrange themselves to grab heat from the sun, and then hold on to the heat when the sun goes away, which when you think about it is patently ludicrous.
The real arguements should center on the computer models that are the basis for all claims about warming. Complex models are all based on a series of simplifying assumptions, which are made because the modelers don't know exactly how to mathematically describe a system. These assumptions can seem reasonable, but if the resulting model predictions can't even predict current conditions based on past data, there ought to be zero confidence in the model. Instead we are in the process of drastically changing our economy based on their output.
Last year a paper was presented at Heartland that showed why the models are wrong. The culprit is the basic reradiation equation. This paper has been basically ignored in media. They were dismissed out of hand by the head of NASA, which should have been a cause for immediate firing for incompetence.
Bottom line is that those who understand the scam need to keep plugging away at getting the truth out over the shouts of the uninformed.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 10:05AM
Of course man-made global warming is a hoax, and a patently obvious one at that. And I fully understand the motives of the powerful politial interests that back and promote it. What I have trouble comprehending is why the masses have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
Look at our little friend David Mathews. He is a true believer, and willing to spend considerable time and energy defending this nonsense in hostile territory. I've got plenty of friends here in Vermont, smart successful people, that truely believe in this stuff. I just don't get it. Help me out David. How did you become a Global Warmist?
Rocin| 3.18.09 @ 10:09AM
So, DM, your argument seems to be, if creationists are wrong (whatever that has to do with the discussion you don't say), then global warming deniers are wrong too.
Excuse me, if I can't pick anything more substantive out of your argument.
Sheeesh!!
Bill| 3.18.09 @ 10:17AM
DM... face it your game is over. The more you post to this article the more of a fool you make yourself out to be. I have studied this issue for a number of years and my son is a scientist. The facts speak for themselves. In the business world we say numbers do not lie but liars make numbers up.
Smoke and mirrors.. doing one thing to get a totally different result.
Get your winter coat out .. it is getting colder... lol
What a fool !!!!
Not Chicken Little| 3.18.09 @ 10:22AM
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Oh...never mind...
The computer models can't predict present-day conditions when given known inputs from the past. To take them as Gospel is folly. Hurricane prediction computer models - where every factor that can be measured, is measured - still can only predict where the hurricane will be 3 days out, to within +/- 250 miles. And none of the models agree. To place one's faith - and it is just that, a faith, not science - in computer models that do not know and cannot include all the factors, and to claim that they can accurately predict what conditions will be 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now - is not science, it is stupidity.
Science is supposed to be skeptical. But we see just the opposite, from both those who claim to be scientists but who are more like high priests, and from those true believer followers who are more like religious fanatics than anything else.
stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 3.18.09 @ 10:26AM
Mr Global Mathews;
In this time of rhetorical pie-fights it seems to suit the well intentioned among us to disregard what the opposition deniers are actually saying.
To me, you sound like someone who has no appreciation of geologic time or planetary space. The earth warms and (currently) cools naturally as effected by planetary-sized forces uneffected by your choice of Toyota Prius or Chevy Suburban. That choice may effect smog levels in the LA basin but has no effect on the cover of sea ice at the North Pole.
Macro vs. micro, see?
Things are not going your way. Your point of view on this topic will generally be remembered as foolish, in say, 5 years.
Al Gore| 3.18.09 @ 10:59AM
Oops, I forgot to login as David Matthews. Oh well, hey robots, I mean, friends, I have made sure that I do not repeat the errors of Madoff on this global warming ponzi scheme. If you have a brain, please disregard this message (spinning hypnotic spiral thingy)
Fran Manns| 3.18.09 @ 11:06AM
Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of believing and contributing to the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
The climate celebrities are linking climate and the economy. Yes, there has been warming since the Pleistocene. Climate is a multiple input, multiple loop, multiple output, complex system. The facts and the hypotheses, however, do not support CO2 as a serious 'pollutant'. In fact, it is plant fertilizer and seriously important to all life on the planet. It is the red herring used to unwind our economy. That issue makes the science relevant.
Water vapour (0.4% overall by volume in air, but 1 – 4 % near the surface) is the most effective green house gas followed by methane (0.0001745%). The third ranking greenhouse gas is CO2 (0.0383%), and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high; making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
CO2 has been rising and Earth has been warming. However, the correlation trails. Correlation, moreover, is not causation. The causation is studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome.
“Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.”
As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that.
Although the post 60s warming period appears to be over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with more humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. Ancient sedimentary rocks and paleontological evidence indicate the planet has had abundant liquid water over the entire span. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat.
Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/SKY.aspx
Dan Delion| 3.18.09 @ 11:39AM
DIVID MATHEWS – Since when is scientific knowledge determined by a vote? You don't have a clue how science works. Your warm-mongering believes are nothing but a cult. Remember that when people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing – they believe in anything.
Paul from SA| 3.18.09 @ 12:09PM
Mr. Peter Ferrara, excellent article; keep up the good work.
As an engineer, with a strong background in chemistry, physics, thermo, and lots and lots of math, the science regarding this issue is fascinating. I wish I could live forever and keep learning more on this subject.
However, the politics behind this issue is standard democratic/liberal tactics -- everybody who disagrees with a liberal is automatically prejudged to be corrupt and inferior, no matter the subject. Liberals can succeed only with help from the mainstream media, otherwise nobody would believe this nonsense of global warming.
Eventually the truth will come out.
For David Matthews, after you're finished with your blathering, let's get straight to the science. Please answer this one question:
Can you provide any data that shows a positive correlation between man-made CO2 emissions and global temperatures (besides just the brief time period between 1977 and 1998)?
Dustoff| 3.18.09 @ 12:22PM
Guys... sorry to speak up again.
DM will not answer zip. He never has, other then insult you and then leave.
The one thing he does well.
What a lost human soul.
jack russell terror | 3.18.09 @ 1:37PM
If global warming were true and an iminent disaster behaviors of the 'jet set' of global warmism would indeed be different. Al Gore can't even be bothered with turning down the heating/cooling in his tennesse manse.
jim bob| 3.18.09 @ 1:51PM
DM is not interested in actual debate or discussion. He is simply trying to yank your chain and waste your time.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.09 @ 1:54PM
Seventeen days into their trip to measure sea ice to help prove global warming, 3 pseudo scientists have become trapped, with only one day supply of food left. I don't mean to be cruel, but I hope they become popsicles. The North Pole region is suffering from some of the lowest recorded temperatures on record. Yet we plunge onto cap and trade.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indepth/environment/s/afp/090317/world/climate_science_britain_canada_arctic_1
Three British explorers trying to ski to the North Pole to measure the thickness of sea ice only have one day's food left as bad weather hampers supply flights, the mission said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.
"We?re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice and, because we?re not moving, the colder we get," Hadow said Tuesday in a statement from the London headquarters of the Catlin Arctic Survey.
"Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we?re in the lap of the weather gods. This is basic survival."
The expedition set off on a 85-day hike on February 28 when the three were dropped off by plane on an ice floe some 668 miles, from northern Canada.
During the past 17 days temperatures have consistently dropped below minus 40 degrees Celsius, and have been accompanied by strong winds increasing the chill factor.
Bad weather has forced three attempts to drop food supplies to the team on a landing strip close to their camp to turn back.
Three British explorers trying to ski to the North Pole to measure the thickness of sea ice only have one day's food left as bad weather hampers supply flights, the mission said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.
"We?re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice and, because we?re not moving, the colder we get," Hadow said Tuesday in a statement from the London headquarters of the Catlin Arctic Survey.
"Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we?re in the lap of the weather gods. This is basic survival."
The expedition set off on a 85-day hike on February 28 when the three were dropped off by plane on an ice floe some 668 miles, from northern Canada.
During the past 17 days temperatures have consistently dropped below minus 40 degrees Celsius, and have been accompanied by strong winds increasing the chill factor.
Bad weather has forced three attempts to drop food supplies to the team on a landing strip close to their camp to turn back.
stmichrick| 3.18.09 @ 2:08PM
Why don't you demonstrate some scientific literacy then. You seem to be here to pollute the intellectual environment with mudballs that have no mass.
There's nothing inaccurate about what I wrote.
Paul from SA| 3.18.09 @ 2:13PM
Never argue with an idiot like Dave Mathews, just pop him in the face and he'll run, run, run away!
rw| 3.18.09 @ 2:23PM
DM,
Here's a quiz for you.
1. Please explain the difference between theory, hyptohesis?
2. Explain how consensus is related to proof of anything.
3. Explain why no light shines where you head is.
owyheewine| 3.18.09 @ 2:26PM
To DM
Actually I'm retired with no connection with any industry except the hobby vineyard I grow, and the wine I produce from it.
It would be a little more effective if you would address the issue of blind faith in fatally flawed computer models, and convulated thermodynamics instead of making ignorant personal attacks.
stmichrick| 3.18.09 @ 2:26PM
Thanks for making my point. No specifics; just more insults. You have not demonstrated any scientific perspective; just allegiance to leftist dogma on the subject.
I'll believe in man-made GW when Algore ceases to live large.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.09 @ 2:46PM
The part time minimum wage job is over for the day so the brain has returned.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 3:09PM
Hi David Mathews:
Thanks for the response. I admire your tenacity and diligence in answering your many critics in the TAS lion's den.
So you became a Global Warmist my reading and studying science. I did the same and remain a sceptic.
But what I was trying to get at is...was there any personal experience or insight that made the light bulb go off to make you think - wow man-made CO2 is causing the earth to warm!
For instance: when I was in high school in the late 70s, one of the favorite recurring science fair projects related to the then ongoing global cooling. I distinctly remember a display with a ball, painted to look like the earth, sticking out from the tri-fold with an icy looking hand sticking out over the top and the scary title in bold print "Are We in the Grips of the Next Ice Age?"
Then I move to the Champlain Valley in Vermont and learn that my home site was once, some 10,000 years ago, covered by an ice sheet approximately a mile thick!
I also read about the thriving agricultural based Viking culture that developed in Greenland around 1000 A.D.
See what I'm getting at? Through personal experience I have plenty of evidence that the climate varies dramatically from non-made causes, and that in the span of one short lifetime society has gone through two opposite temperature related environmental hysterias; one that it's getting too cold and one that it's getting too hot.
Does this help you to understand why I'm a sceptic, and why I view an unshakable belief in man-made global warming as something akin to religious dogma?
rw| 3.18.09 @ 3:14PM
DM,
How can I possibly improve my scietific literacy if you refuse to teach me?
Obviously, the questions I posed are beyond your paygrade. Although, you should easily be able to answer question 3 with some simple laboratory experimentation. To aid you in your test I'll suggest the first step.
1. Bend Over, Grab Ankles
2. ?
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.18.09 @ 3:22PM
http://davidmathews.biz/index.html
David J| 3.18.09 @ 3:22PM
David Matthews - Do you think you are god? Why are you wasting your day proving to all of us what an as* you are? Go ahead - call us some more names. That will PROVE you are educated. I think Obamai is showing us what modern "education" get's us.
Jokes like you trying ANYTHING in the name of power. You will be the first to go in the upcoming revolution!
David J| 3.18.09 @ 3:27PM
BTW - your music is VERRRRY boring!
Marc Jeric| 3.18.09 @ 3:34PM
This fervent commie David Mathews is so proud of the globaloney warming hoax; he resorts to name calling and to the scientific credentials of the UN government-paid "scientists" - almost all rejects of private enterprise. He also relies on the pronouncements of the inventor of Internet and re-inventor of government - that functional moron Al Gore; he who invests his tax-free carbon offset money in his own carbon-conscious company for tax-free profits. Say, David - what are your own scientific credentials to pronounce on the latest "climate change" flimflam? When the globaloney cooling scam of the 1970's proved unreliable - how about trying with globaloney warming in the 1990's? And when after 11 years of substantial cooling - well we always have "climate change" flimflam! I have a PhD in Engineering from UCLA , majors in heat & mass transfer and in thermodynamics - and am one of signers of the "Global Warming Petition Project", together with 9,021 other PhD's among the total of 31,972 scientists; this petition denies any human activities influence on our climate. S0, David - what are your scientific credentials?
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 3:36PM
Guys like Matthews reveal the mindset of the AGW cultist religion. Lots of unsupportable AlGorish naked assertion and ad hom. Ridiculuous shuck and jive topic changes and nonsenical attempts to equate AGW skeptics with Young Earth Creationism and such. But zero by way of substantive refutation to the factual skeptic data.
Note to AGW cult members. Politics and hysteria will not trump facts and science long term.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Yes, the globe is warming as a 'long term' trend. Which is why Yosemite Valley is no longer a glacier since the past few thousand years.
No, man is not causing it. As the following links and data, which the hyperbolic cultist idealogues are unable to address, want to ignore;
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/scientists-increasingly-dissent-global-warming-proponents
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020823062734.htm
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0
David J| 3.18.09 @ 3:40PM
David Matthews - I am still waiting to hear why your opinion counts. Credentials and proof, please.
Steve in Fla| 3.18.09 @ 3:41PM
What are your credentials &/or qualifications to preach and judge the way you do? Being a know-it-all liberal is not enough to convince me. In fact your impassioned rhetorical arguing makes your position even more comical. You really can't tell that everyone here thinks you're a moron, do you?
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 3:44PM
David Freaking Matthews,
Funny you calling Mike a liar as global cooling was a very real movement in the 1970's you stupid ass moron. Here is a link for you for a Newsweek article in 1975.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1310991/posts
I am sure you are a big fan of Newsweek aren't you? Now go f*%# yourself
David J| 3.18.09 @ 3:44PM
David Matthews said: I don't feel the need to prove anything to anyone. Your own words are revelation enough of the character flaws common to conservatives.
Are you saying conservatives are not humans, or are you just trying to say you think you are better than everyone else? Why do I see nothing scientific in your Man Made Global Warming rants?
Ed| 3.18.09 @ 3:54PM
David Mathews,
What a good little apparatchik you are. I'm sure the teleprompter will be pleased.
Dustoff| 3.18.09 @ 3:58PM
LOL...
O-well I tried to tell you guys about DM.
Well davie try websites like Peak oil, SP, human events and SO many others that know all about you and your foolish postings.
I see you haven't changed when someone ask you a question that you never could answer.
By the way all posters. Many sites have a saying about davie. He lives in his mothers basement in FL. I wonder how much of that is really true.
rw| 3.18.09 @ 4:13PM
DM said, "I am not in the business of educating the ignorant. "
OMG. LOL. That's the most clear headed thing you've said since you have obviously failed to educate you own ignorant self. Now the healing can begin.
Pingback| 3.18.09 @ 4:26PM
define consensus…the saga of global warming continues « VanderBlog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PolishKnight| 3.18.09 @ 4:26PM
I'm chuckling at how the true believers, such as David Mathews, are seeing their religious truths crash before their eyes. Absolutely hilarious. It's something that he's not going to let go down without a fight. He'll namecall. He'll seek to trash the United States economy. Anything but, gasp, admit he's wrong (even as he tells others they're bigots for not listening to him.) The importance of being Right and superior is more important than the very thing he claims matters to him: the health of the Earth. He's worried, terrified even, that the world ISN'T going to come to an end.
I'm reminded of discussing the notion of real estate "always goes up" with true believers back in 2005. They told me that I had to buy a house, right away, because real estate ALWAYS goes up! I said it might go down and they responded then it would take the whole economy with it (I wish I had taken THAT seriously!)
Leftism and marxism are the biggest religions since Christianity. Only with Catholicism, at least, you get a good pancake dinner.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 4:27PM
Oh yes, I hasten to add a final note. Although I have zero doubt that the extremely important information and links I provided above, which absolutely scientifically DESTROY arguments like those made by DM, will not be addressed in any substantive way by him.....
I will also add that my career happens to be "Rocket Science" (Aerospace Engineering Manager, Communications Satellite technology), and that also I believe that the Earth is approx 4.6 billion years old, (give or take a couple billion... for 'earmarks' needed by Obama's "I'll never accept earmarks" budget).
I am curious what DM's professional credentials are.
I would wager since he has endless time on his hands to barrage and spam the entire web with his off topic failures to address any of the real AGW science issues, he is VERY likely a paid government employee......with a LOT of taxpayer funded government paid time on his hands.
Just a guess.
David J| 3.18.09 @ 4:27PM
David Matthews - R U so scientifically illiterate, you can't show us ANY credentials? I almost feel sorry for you, you are SOOOO ignorant!
Dustoff| 3.18.09 @ 4:27PM
DM
Republicans are going to lose a lot of elections in 2010 and 2012 ...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Current polling proves otherwise.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 4:28PM
All right Dave Mathews. I give. You are a indeed a true believer. However, I'm glad to see that see that you accept that climate change is timeless and unrelated to man-made CO2 - except for the previous two decades ending in 1998 of course. Usually you can't state the obvious too often with warmists.
May you be happy in the religion you have chosen.
BTW. I found a picture of the icy hand in a 1978 yearbook, back when all the Kyoto nonsense first came up a decade or so ago.
Daniel| 3.18.09 @ 4:34PM
>>"..I'm chuckling at how the true believers, such as David Mathews, are seeing their religious truths crash before their eyes. Absolutely hilarious. It's something that he's not going to let go down without a fight. He'll namecall. He'll seek to trash the United States economy.."
Daniel| 3.18.09 @ 4:36PM
".I'm chuckling at how the true believers, such as David Mathews, are seeing their religious truths crash before their eyes. Absolutely hilarious. It's something that he's not going to let go down without a fight. He'll namecall. He'll seek to trash the United States economy.."
Yes, since he seems far more eager to discuss politics, religion, and Evolution, rather than address any of the actual science problems with AGW...I will use an 'evolutionary' image that pops into mind when I read his hysterical, off topic, name calling, shrieking, rants.
Namely, the opening scene of "2001 A Space Odyssey".
I see AGW skeptics as the evolving Hominid tribe leader picking up the bone and contemplating its future usefulness ...and I see DM as the shrieking, gibbering, leaping, hollering, hysterical membership of the other tribe who just 'doesn't get it'.
John | 3.18.09 @ 4:38PM
Hello David Mathews,
20,000 years ago,glaciers were in New York state.Had you been around,would you have said that if these glaciers melt away,it's somehow bad? Best regards...
Dan DeLion| 3.18.09 @ 4:39PM
-
DAVID MATHEWS - Hello –
You're one busy boy! - The scientific illiterates are the ones who say “the science is in.” They claim 600 GW “scientists” have declared man-made GW exists. This is the basis of their believe in GW.
In science if you can't predict you don't have anything (see string theory). GW has a prediction history below what you would expect if the predictions were made using a dart board. It has no predictive powers. That has led to a name change, no longer are the faithful talking about GW, now its Climate Change. What serves as proof of CC is any large storm or weather event. Clearly GW/CC lacks intellectual rigor. How can you justify the expenditure and restrictions GW's would impose based upon such thin gruel?
-
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 4:41PM
"Anyone who wants to see where I live can click on my name and they will find out easily enough. "
Typical of the logic quality of all his arguments. Ask for his credentials, you get a link to irrelevant pictures.
On a science knowledge credibility scale of 1 to 10 ..with Al Gore a '1' at defending the indefensible..this DM guy can't even get to .001
Just parrots the tired sheep like bleating about the government paid hacks of the IPCC whose sole agenda is lining their pockets with more taxpayer confiscated funding.
To paraphrase, DM's posts are so irrelevantly useless to this discussion, they don't even qualify as 'wrong'.
Yasha| 3.18.09 @ 4:50PM
David Mathews writes:
"I do everything on my own authority and that is sufficient for everything. "
Excellent. I encourage all readers to visit David's linked Flickr page. We are dealing with a naturalist wanna-be who doesn't know how to spell "hibiscus." :-)
So David, thanks for providing proof that you're a moron. And hurry, go change your spelling of "hibiscis" (sic) before others see.
Some authority.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 4:52PM
DM, re your comment..
"Either you are scientifically illiterate or you get all your science from Fox News or you are simply lying. "
This of course typifies your shuck and jive avoidance of science and fact. I gave the links that summarize the current state of the scientific debate.
In fact, I gave a LOT of links.
You will no doubt fail to address the state of ANY of teh current factual scientific data which refutes and destroys IPCC...but please keep displaying for us your zeal to avoid the science in your never ending quest to try and change the subject to Christianity, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
It's imporant people see the contrast between good sheeplike agendizing political cultists such as yourself... who parrot the IPCC and know/care nothing about the actual current data, science...vs. people posting actual information that bears directly on the topic of whether we should quickly destroy Western economies to satisfy the egos and money grabbers whose arses you are sniffing.
The contrast is striking, so keep up the good work of revealing yourself.
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 5:02PM
David, you are the very Brownshirt that Mr. Ferrara described. Historical record that puts the lie to your faith is irrelevant: the non-believers must be ridiculed until they become reluctant even to speak. In your eyes, we crawl lower than Holocaust deniers.
I am not a climatologist, but as a geography and history teacher, I have studied the subject extensively.
You want someone to answer the question "is the globe warming?". Fine. I'm happy to. The answer is, "not currently, no." Does this mean that I concede that the globe has warmed in the past? Of course it does. Climate is cyclical, and it merits much more further study.
But this does not serve the interests of Watermelons ("Green on the outside, Red on the inside") like Gore and Obama. No, we must all yield -- now, immediately, and without further discussion -- to their designs. You decry the oil companies for being motivated to deny AGW, but ignore Gore's personal pecuniary interest in "cap and trade" and Obama's desire for unquestioned power to "change" (read: degrade) America.
The scales are falling off the eyes of the American people. They are seeing the truth. They are seeing the threat that people like you pose to our country, and your time is rapidly passing. Judging from the tone of your posts, this has made you desperate.
I sincerely hope that TAS does not kick you from the thread. You are the perfect example of the fervent AGW believer. And AGW, like any other failing religion, desperately needs believers. It needs you.
+++
John | 3.18.09 @ 5:03PM
Hello David Mathews,
I have little doubt that you would have been concerned about the glaciers melting 20,000 years ago.You'd be wrong then.And I'm certain you're wrong now.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 5:03PM
".. I could give you just as many links affirming creationism and debunking evolution.
My confidence is in science.."
Well, no..clearly your confidence is not in science, since it is scientific data itself which refutes AGW.
Whether it be current sea ice measurements, NASA corrections of erroneous previous false 'high temp' data, historical graphs of climate change over the past 2 million years or so, correlations of sun output and sunspot activity to mini warming / cooling cycles, fall off of hurriane activity to lowest levels in decades, record low temps being set at record levels the past 2 years globally, or any of the myriad countless dozens of OTHER irrefutable scientific facts which no sentient being can deny....
I realize that reality and truth are entirely unimportant to a cultist...so go on chaging the subject..but the links I provided have nothing to do with internet nutballism and everything to do with currently measured scientific data. Something you have demonstrated clearly is entirely uninteresting to you.
You do provide comic relief to a serious subject hwoever, and a great example as I said previously between the contrast of objective evaluations of evidence vs strict religious self parody of cult sheep mentality. Incapable of a logical thought, a tiny bit of research, or even the least amount of intellectual integrity.
The more you post, the stronger the current trend toward science we will all lean...as more and more people can see the stark difference between the shallow, 'zero researched', outdated and politisized IPCC mindset you display, ...vs those actually reading the latest scientific data on the topic.
I have to get back to Rocket Science now, lunch break over, ...so have the last word since you have unlimited time on your hands, given your govt. dole provided job or welfare payments.
Daniel| 3.18.09 @ 5:10PM
DM said (Over and over and over)
"You people"
"spend your time"
"Needless to say, you people"
"unpopular extremist minority"
"American politics"
"which creationists do all the time"
"debates against evolutionists"
LOL!!! This DM guy knows zero about climate science and the current state of the evidence.
But he sure is obsessed with trying to avoid the topic here to talk evolution, creationism, and politics!
A really sad and pathetic example pf the pathology that goes with the Global Warming scam adherents.
Forget discussion of any real GW point with this guy. He has no qualifications and will always change the topic to quasi religio politics.
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 5:19PM
Thank you for your 5:08pm post confirming my remark about your desperation. It put a smile on my face.
It begs a question though: what exactly is your purpose in posting here? To persuade? Obviously not.
You are the stormtrooper that has stationed himself outside a Jewish-owned shop warning all good Aryans not to enter. You chant your slogans; you call people names; you seek to intimidate the passers-by.
To you I say, get out of my way, you blockheaded punk: I have business to conduct.
+++
Dustoff| 3.18.09 @ 5:23PM
Jezzz, guys he'll do the tap dance all day long and not say a thing.
This how he gets kicked from websites.
But please Davie. Keep it up.
Chemman| 3.18.09 @ 5:28PM
David Mathews
(1) enlighten me as to your science education. What degree do you have and what field is it in?
(2) do you understand the principles of gas-liquid solubility, gas-liquid equilbria and vapor pressures. They would easily explain the CO2 Temperature correlations without need of a computer model that predicts AGW regardless of what temperature information you put.
But then what does a science deficient hick like me understand about science. (B.S. in Microbiology and Chemistry, M.S in Project Engineering)
Rocin| 3.18.09 @ 5:39PM
Ha ha, this is funny.
DM:
- learned science on the internet,
-can't define the difference between hypothesis and theory, (at least until he googles it),
-argues (somehow): if creationists are wrong then global warming deniers are wrong too.
(see above:"The is not exactly how I would phrase the argument but it would do ...")
-and "scientifically" proves his point by saying, "Are you an evolutionist? Do you believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?"
Ha ha, good one, DM. Actually, I am a mathematician.
Here is a question for you: Can I still have a valid opinion if I think that the earth is actually a little older than 4.5 billion years? What if I think the best evidence is that it is closer to 5 billion years?
Where does my belief in the age of the earth render my opinion about GW invalid?
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 5:46PM
Re DM at 5:31pm: I could not have asked for a better example of what I had described. Thank you.
+++
Chemman| 3.18.09 @ 5:49PM
David,
(1) You certainly made claims for yourself when you indicated others on this site were science deniers.
(2) If the science spoke for itself then explain the overwhelming number of scientists (B.S., M.S. and PhD's) who dispute the interpretations of AGW .
(2) What I asked you about solution chemistry is taught to students during first year high school chemistry classes. It isn't about Nobel Prize work.
(3) Retired High School Chemistry/Biology Teacher. Glad to know you believe education is a polluting industry.
(4) David are you still sucking of the teat of big oil, big coal , natural gas to supply your energy needs?
Rocin| 3.18.09 @ 6:00PM
Folks: new theory. "David Matthews" is really Peter Ferrara, pulling our legs, and at the same time generating interest in his column.
What else could reasonably explain such blather?
Hint: Occam's Razor will help you here.
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 6:06PM
Do you or don't you smoke weed Dave? I think you must to actually find that little creep Stewart funny. Colbert is actually funny at times but Stewart stopped being funny years ago consumed in his hatred against Bush. He is a big fan of dictators like Evo Morales though. Here is a link to his disgusting ass kissing display of that two-bit dictator on his show back a couple years ago.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=103275&title=president-evo-morales
What a piece of garbage but freaks like Dave worship him.
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 6:08PM
Rocin --
Like Townhall.com's legendary satirist "Loyal Democrat"? LD never fails to hook a new fish.
If so, then DM has used a net and landed us all. And that would certainly explain his 5:31 to me.
+++
chemman| 3.18.09 @ 6:17PM
David,
(1) But if you have no training in the sciences how do you arrive at the conclusion that those of us that do are spreading B.S. about science
(2) You didn't answer the question, are you still sucking on the teat of big oil, big coal, natural gas for your energy needs. Relevance, if you anything but a wanna be, and truly believed in AGW then you would walk the talk. I assume from your answer that you are one more in a line of hypocrites that rant and rave but won't change your lifestyle to match your rhetoric.
(4) I will match my lifestyle against yours and I certainly bet I am more green than you will ever be, and I am one of those dreaded conservative science deniers what is your excuse
Rocin| 3.18.09 @ 6:19PM
Charles: Yeah, he sure clobbered you with that one! LOL
(Proof that my Occam's Razor argument is irrefutable!)
50GreenDodge| 3.18.09 @ 6:21PM
Poor David Mathews sounds like he was raised in a Christian home that maybe was a leeetle too strict in its application of The Holy Bible. He is definitely manifesting a disaffection with all things that pertain to religion.
But wait! I believe Brother Rosencrans a while ago hit the ol' nail right on the head. Like so many of the so-called 'progressives,' his religion is the doctrine of global warming and climate change.
I have ex-friends just like him; they have rejected Catholicism, in their case, and this has left a large hole in their lives which they have filled with a kind of pagan belief in ecology.
Rigid, doctrinaire, intolerant, on this one issue they show all the signs of fanaticism. They are all products of top universities and have led productive, comfortable, in many cases professional, lives. But when mildly challenged about climate issues, it is amazing how quickly the anger rises in them.
This is, I fear, Bush Derangement Syndrome writ large. Since they make up such a large percentage of our society, it is terribly unsettling.
My experience with folks like that leads me to think their understanding is pretty shallow, since they refuse to even listen to what others are saying.
JMJ| 3.18.09 @ 6:30PM
Dustoff| 3.18.09 @ 4:27PM
DM
Republicans are going to lose a lot of elections in 2010 and 2012 ...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Current polling proves otherwise?
Your son's and daughters are moving to the left as we speak.
Republicans are going to lose a lot of elections in 2010 and 2012 and 2016 and 2020 etc etc.
Good work David Mathews. You've got them worked up into a fanatical frenzy.
They all have been 'Limbotomized' and have accepted Rushbo as their Lord and Savoir. They're not called 'dittoheads' for nothing.
The right is a bloody RED pool of self eating, self hating pirranah's.
Come back over where the water is BLUE and clear and logical.
owyheewine| 3.18.09 @ 6:32PM
Fellow Climate Realists
I think we should be a little ashamed, entering into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
I'm guessing a trust fund slacker or a 10th year doctoral student of French Art History and (fill in the blank) Liberation Theory, living on the public dollar. Hasn't ever had an honest job, partakes generously of recreational drugs and hasn't had a science class since junior high school.
A perfect liberal and a perfect waste of time.
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 6:35PM
You are the one that said how much you enjoy those shows Dave. How about this Dave, nobody gives a damn about your opinion about anything. You remind me of one of those miserable bastards in Atlas Shrugged that thinks capitalism is so unfair and only what your needs are is what is important, not what you produce. One of the looters that make up the base of the Democrat party nowadays.
Rocin| 3.18.09 @ 6:37PM
Owyhee: Sorry, good guess, but you are wrong. See my 6:00 post; "David Matthews" is really Peter Ferrara.
Only logical explanation.
AynR| 3.18.09 @ 6:42PM
JMJ
LIMBOTOMIZED!
Perfect! That says it all!
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 6:42PM
I know how much you commies hate Ayn Rand because she exposes you for the looters and hypocrites you are. That is a stupid comparison to L. Ron Hubbard. Enjoy your Noam Chomsky freak
chemman| 3.18.09 @ 6:44PM
David, you are a hypocrite. You are part of this civilization and if you think it is leading to a climate disaster why aren't you leading the way with a change in your lifestyle. Naw, that would be to difficult for someone of your intellect. Just keep ranting and raving about how terrible it is while you contribute to what you hate.
Rocin| 3.18.09 @ 6:44PM
Haha, good one, Peter!!
However, you can't overplay the part. You need to dial back your "David Mathews" persona a little bit, and give it more credibility;
anyway, good job, you really had us going!
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 6:53PM
JMJ --
"Your son's (sic) and daughters are moving to the left as we speak."
The young people with whom I come into regular contact, nearly all of them having voted for Barry, have grown very quiet. As they watch the Savior-Leader in action, they volunteer their unease. Their buyer's remorse has become overt. They are grasping that they are being handed the bill. I am not interpolating this: they tell me so.
You can relax though. I'm sure this is happening only in Texas. And not in Indiana, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Virginia, or North Carolina. And definitely not in any marginal Democrat-held Congressional districts.
"You've got them worked up into a fanatical frenzy."
Until your arrival, the only fanatic here was DM. He's certainly the only one in a piranha-like frenzy.
+++
JP| 3.18.09 @ 7:08PM
Todd,
Don't waste your time with DaveM. Hist schtick is obvious. He obviously hasn't a scientific nor a mathematical bone in his body. I imagine he couldn't calculate the first derivative of x squared; nor could he tell the difference between an isotherm or an isotach. Love the way be belittles people for lack of scientific background as he ignores the answers people give him. A perfect Gore Troll. He obviously hasn't had a date with a woman in years, and probably hasn't had a shower in weeks. As we speak, I bet his mother is telling him to get out of the basement and turn his damn iMac off.
Todd, be assured he will respond to this post. People like him must have the last word. They are narcissists who display a rather vulgar, immature personality well into thier 50s.
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 7:25PM
No, David, they are not imaginary. They are quite real. But because this is Texas, the result will be only that the Republican candidate in 2012 will carry the state by an even larger margin. The only net gain will come from the additional Electoral votes we will receive after the 2010 census. (If the proportions reflected in the 2008 estimate hold, and Barry's White House staff doesn't massage the numbers away, we will get three more, the largest gain by any state.)
Their disillusionment with Barry hasn't turned them into Palin-enthusiasts (though several have conceded that Palin's flaws were exaggerated while Barry's were concealed), but I have every reason to expect that many of them will not be voting for his second term.
OK, now here's where you insult me.
As for Texas, while otherwise reliably conservative, the county in which I live was unexpectedly carried by the teleprompter-candidate. Many long-seated and comfortable municipal judges were turned out of office, albeit by only narrow margins. That will not be repeated in 2012.
And here is where you say something insulting about my homeland.
+++
TT| 3.18.09 @ 7:33PM
LOL...David Mathews has been owned. Give it up, you are really looking bad.
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 7:33PM
JP,
I know there is no reason to debate someone Like Dave about global warming because facts and science mean nothing to him, much like Al Gore. I will just let him know what I think of losers like him who troll around with their idiotic arguments and insults. The looters like him will eventually face the meaninglessness of their lives and the moral bankruptcy of their beliefs. Those who were fooled by Obama this election will wise up next time around due to hard experience.
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 7:52PM
Your life is clearly meaningless and pointless Dave. You have no morals and no God, what do you live for Dave? What is the point of your existence? To strive to take away meaning from other peoples lives? I lived with an atheist Noam Chomsky fanatic for a little bit a few years back, poor miserable bastard that guy was.
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 7:54PM
JP (7:08pm) was right: DM will have the last word even when he has nothing to say.
+++
Todd| 3.18.09 @ 8:21PM
Once again you display your utter ignorance Dave. How can I be a religious nut and a cult follower of Ayn Rand? To educate you, Ayn Rand is more or less atheistic and I am certainly not a cult follower. I think her philosophy on basic human nature and the laws of economics are correct though and there is much evidence to back that up, the utter failure of marxism and communism of the past century is all the evidence I need. Like a cockroach though, it is very hard to kill because the looters are always around looking to take from those who produce.
Just like I thought, you have no point to your existence and you are basically a cockroach of society. I am done with you so get your last word in because I don't care what it is.
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 8:27PM
The only people who could be cheered by repeating foolishness like "capitalism is dead" are the true losers in a society that rewards diligence, hard work, and achievement.
Even where the Socialists enjoy the advantage of armies of jackbooted thugs to enforce their tyranny, self-interest is triumphant, even if it can manifest itself only by slacking off and staying home.
Capitalism is the universal engine of prosperity. It will long survive the reputation, even the life, of our Socialist "leader".
Ayn Rand was a novelist who postulated popular rebellion against a state whose aim was the suppression of self-interested capitalists. If you want to try to ridicule capitalism, do so, if you can, against Adam Smith.
+++
Charles Martel| 3.18.09 @ 8:46PM
David, you are steeped in dogma. Your every response is a lie. You are dogmatic in your error.
You post only to provoke. You are dismantled by every opponent here. Your frustration is mildly humorous, but I am through with you.
You will have the last word only because you cannot suffer otherwise. Nonetheless, you fail. Know that you cannot win when you are so wrong and that you do not win merely by being last.
+++
daboss| 3.18.09 @ 9:15PM
DM:
yes - evil capitalism ... that got you your internet connection (unless you are stealing it), the computer, the home you are in.
Do you hit up your friends for everything you have or do you provide for yourself?
oh the evils ....
move to cuba!
Russell Seitz| 3.18.09 @ 9:19PM
With due respect to David Matthews, I confess that Mr. Ferrara's is not the most tendentious load of pseudoscientific codswallop I have encountered in the last 24 hours.
Paul Ehrlich came to speak at Harvard today, and despite his legal skills, poor Ferrara seems a mere tyro by comparison.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 9:21PM
And the winner is Dave Mathews. After 14 hours on-line and 70+ posts later, you may get your wish about capitalism, as our economy goes down the toilet. President Obama's climate plan could cost industry close to $2 trillion, nearly three times the White House's initial estimate of the so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation. "The last thing we need is a massive tax increase in a recession, but reportedly that's what the White House is offering: up to $1.9 trillion in tax hikes on every single American who drives a car, turns on a light switch or buys a product made in the United States," said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner. "
JMJ| 3.18.09 @ 9:23PM
Hot damn David, jolly good job old man. They threw in the towel.
Pretty sad bunch, I'd say...don't like it when you cain't spel (sic) and hate it when you have a PhD from Ha'va'd.
They run from comment to comment sniffing away at arse holes like mad dogs looking for a familiar scent. And God forbid someone should challenge their hypocricy. OMG what would our Savoir Limpbo think, tell me what to think ?
daboss| 3.18.09 @ 9:38PM
DM:
I do not believe in man-made global warming/climate change or anything of that matter. Note – MAN MADE.
I do believe the climate changes – notice the Great Lakes – formed by melting glaciers 20-40k years ago during the last ice age. I am pretty sure the Earth has had NO polar ice caps far longer than it has had them.
I would assume the sun has a little something to do with it. I think Mars is warming as well – damn those rovers spewing CO2!
Northeast Ohio was also under 300 feet of water millions of years ago. The great plains were also covered by a warm inland sea. I watched a discovery channel show about castles Henry VIII built. They toured one that was to protect a harbor yet there was no water within ½ mile of the castle. But when it was build – it was right on the water.
So the climate changes all the time. Plus the earth was warmer for far longer before man even existed during the Jurassic period.
Now – that does not mean we should pollute – we should be stewards of this planet. There is nothing wrong with recycling – I do it all the time. Yet it is my choice – and not under force of someone else.
A free people can be free and still take care of the environment.
Keyser Söze | 3.18.09 @ 10:01PM
Boy, you people sure don't know how to deal with trolls. He's just here to jerk your chain, and he even admits it!
Chant in unison: Don't feed the troll! Don't feed the troll! Don't feed the troll!
Don't talk to him, either. He'll go away if he gets no attention. Otherwise, he wins. The choice is yours.
daboss| 3.18.09 @ 10:01PM
DM -
Well then the earth will survive without us.
That's the catch 22 about freedom ... we must be both free and responsible. Unless you are simply opposed to freedom - which it seams like - thus making a debate more difficult if not impossible.
Have a good night.
Eric Gisin| 3.18.09 @ 10:03PM
Mathews is proof that Loony Left is an apt description of Apocalyptic Global Warming.
CS Lewis| 3.18.09 @ 10:14PM
David M has got to be a teacher or Professor.
Global Warming is all about money. Period.
And why, you might ask.
Money, more money needed for the pensions for teachers and Prof's. Don't worry, O will figure out how to funnel the money their way. It's a done deal.
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 10:17PM
Hello Dave Mathews
"Mike claimed to have seen the Global Cooling at a science fair. That claim was a lie."
Another Ice Age! That's scary stuff. It made an impression on me. Just because you went through high school stoned doesn't mean it was complete blur for everyone.
Thomas| 3.18.09 @ 10:19PM
First it was "Nuclear radiation will kill us all." So nuclear power technology was killed.
Then it was "Chemical water pollution will kill us all." So we cleaned up the waters, at great personal expense.
Then it was "Air pollution will kill us all." So we cleaned up the air, again at great personal expense.
Now it is "Global warming due to man-made CO2 will kill us all."
Now the environmentalist are happy. They have finally settled on the one thing mankind can not cleanup, without the extinction of mankind, the production of CO2. Suicide is usually considered a sign of mental illness.
thomas| 3.18.09 @ 10:24PM
I am sorry, but I just had to note the following from David:
" Nature doesn't need humankind. The Earth doesn't need humankind. The Universe doesn't need humankind. Not even God needs humankind.
So the human tragedy will end. The Earth will enjoy peace again. God will smile again. '
Thanks for making my point.
Good night.
daboss| 3.18.09 @ 10:33PM
DM is a PRIME example of mental illness.
Like talking to a 3 year old!
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 10:36PM
If mankind is doomed to extinction why should anyone be concerned with man-made CO2. Party on while there's time left.
He who dies with the biggest carbon footprint wins.
Thomas| 3.18.09 @ 10:36PM
you are correct. It is easy for man-kind to stem the tide of man-made CO2 pollution, stop breathing. Die. Cease to exist. That is what you really wish for. The demise of the human race. Your demise.
Then, how did you put it? Oh yes, "God will smile again." God will be happy when mankind is dead. When you are dead. I would take a good head look inside your head if I were you. Just don't wait to long.
Thomas| 3.18.09 @ 10:37PM
you are correct. It is easy for man-kind to stem the tide of man-made CO2 pollution, stop breathing. Die. Cease to exist. That is what you really wish for. The demise of the human race. Your demise.
Then, how did you put it? Oh yes, "God will smile again." God will be happy when mankind is dead. When you are dead. I would take a good hard look inside your head if I were you. Just don't wait to long.
stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 3.18.09 @ 10:53PM
MrGlobalMathews;
You've had a busy day today. I left the thread early this afternoon and it looks like you've been throwing mud non- stop ever since.
Do you work? Are you living on re-distributed income?
Remember, I'm giving you only 5 years..if Manhattan is not underwater by then your GW beliefs will be in the 'dustbin of history.'
Mike| 3.18.09 @ 11:02PM
Thomas,
I think you are correct. The whole global warming movement is driven by an ideology that hates CO2 producing capitalism and by extension, mankind. To make the warmists happy, CO2 production would have to be reduced to pre-industrial revolution levels. If that only supports a quarter of the earth's current population, too bad.
When you cut through all the insults, earth worship, and professed love of science, that seems to be the recurrent message of this thread. Is that fair Dave?
MT| 3.18.09 @ 11:56PM
You're the only cancer here, loser. Go back to your mommy's basement.
Pingback| 3.18.09 @ 11:57PM
Mangled Thoughts » Distinguished scientists shoot another golden bullet into ‘man cau links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
CH| 3.18.09 @ 11:58PM
Dave, man up--off yourself for the cause. The fewer smelly hippies like yourself, the better our world will be.
Russell Seitz| 3.19.09 @ 12:56AM
Really Quinn- after Ralph Reed’s appearance at the first Heartand conference, putting a second Abramoff associate on the case bespeaks a certain carelessness.
As to what’s wrong on the science side,-
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/climate_of_here
Silvadry| 3.19.09 @ 1:03AM
Dave's tactic is the same as Hitler's. Repeat the lies often and loud. Repeat them often enough and some fools will think they're the truth. Lots of words, no substance.
Charles Martel| 3.19.09 @ 2:35AM
David Mathews speaks nothing but lies and clothes them in Scripture: his reference to Rev. 18 is very revealing. He is an apocalyptic nihilist, and he hates America with all his heart.
There is no arguing with such fanatics. They fervently embrace the darkness in their souls, and they believe. That is all they will ever do. He will dissolve in his own bitterness and is best ignored by normal people with lives and better things to do than obsess with or against him over his obsessions.
My only regret in this is that I will not be able to see his tears when America is again resurgent after the Community Organizer is returned to Illinois.
And JMJ, he has not driven us off. This is our website, and we shall always return. It's just that we lose interest in people like you. You will always be what you are, and you cannot be helped. We forgive you though.
Now run along and play.
+++
Son Of Sam | 3.19.09 @ 9:09AM
Thank you Dave Lincoln for providing us with this valuable insight. I have always believed that debating liberals is a waste of time, since debates presume a shared interest in arriving at the truth, and the ObamaNazi "progressives" are not interested in the truth.
I also believe that it is a distraction from what we as American patriots, conservatives, libertarians SHOULD be doing, which is to get organized to take back America and defend our freedom from the common enemy. We need to shake off the slave mentality and understand that there is a lot more of us than there are of them. I'm doing my bit, and invite all American citizen patriots of good will to give a listen. I stand ready to help out anyone defending this country in whatever small way that I can manage.
until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos
Mike| 3.19.09 @ 9:10AM
Hello Dave Mathews:
Where the heck are you? Sleeping in late?
*CO2 producing capitalism will drive the Homo sapiens extinct ... so perhaps you shouldn't consider it the lover of humankind. *
Most warmists wouldn't admit that their beliefs are all based on a mankind hating ideology rather than science. Thanks for honesty. Really.
*If the climate changes radically, the Earth will only support a human population 1% of the current human population ... or less. *
Oh please! I'm praying for global warming. Do you know what it would do to real estate prices in the Champlain Valley? Too bad it's all a hoax driven by a self-loathing ideology.
*In other words: Capitalism is killing its host in the same manner cancer kills its host.*
You're confused. Capitalism is the host. Without it the earth couldn't support 20% of the current population.
Relax. Capitalism and the good Ole U.S.A. as the lone hegemon are here to stay. A punk like Obama can't change that.
Charles Martel| 3.19.09 @ 10:36AM
Good morning, Mike.
The problem is that a punk like Obama *can* change that. There are so many things that can go wrong and stay wrong now that the car keys have been given to a drunk teenager.
Capitalism is enduring. It is the engine of prosperity, and only those regimes that are served by killing prosperity work to kill capitalism (the truly serious ones do so by killing capitalists).
But American hegemony can be abdicated, and the very core of Barry's foreign policy is abdication, even thoughtlessness. The damage after four years of this could well be irreparable.
Millions of voters made an egregious mistake last November, and historians will be shaking their heads over this one for centuries hence.
+++
mahout34| 3.19.09 @ 10:49AM
What was the exact reason why Al Gore changed his schedule at a recent conference? Was it not to avoid a reasoned discussion with Vaclav Klaus?
Russell Seitz| 3.19.09 @ 11:13AM
Daft as David Lincol'n 's assertion may be. it is not too late for him to rectify his ignorance of my politics the old fashioned way. By reading my publications . A link has been provided
MT| 3.19.09 @ 11:43AM
Liberals are cowards.
harleycowboy| 3.19.09 @ 11:43AM
Would D.M. please do us all a favor and stop emitting HIS man made CO2? The methane from his mouth is even worse.
Mike| 3.19.09 @ 12:54PM
Wow, fully 86 EIGHTY SIX comments from Mathews yesterday, all to repeat the same thing. (i.e., nothing of scientific substance, just continuous denial of reality, off topic nonsense about Fox news and creationism, and ad homs )
Truly a sad and sick individual with a lot of taxpayer funded time on his hands.
Nonetheless, he serves a purpose as the proverbial 'usefull idot' who facilitates the discussion and elicits a lot of the very excellent actual scientific information that was posted here by the contributors actually interested in the topic.
Kudos to those who posted a lot of the scientific summary data and aggregated facts and info.
The AGW cultists are rapidly losing ground to the truth, and they are hysterically panicked over it. They will lose a lot more ground as the World wakes up to the collosal AGW scam.
Oh yes, I almost forgot...just for you DM, I'm sure I that if I deny your AGW religion, I probably believe in an Usherrite 6000 year old Earth, aliens, bigfoot, magic pyramids, homeopathy, and auras, ...plus get all my scientific info from Fox News, and am a scientific illiterate...but if I missed any other of your favoritely used straw man fallacies which you repeat with mindless and thoughtless redundancy 9,327 times running non stop in your EIGHTY SIX POSTS here yesterday, please let me know.
Thanks in advance!
Brat Magusrsky| 3.19.09 @ 2:39PM
Is David Matthews a junk-science socialist or not ?? (i used the word junk so as to keep it on a level he would understand...or i'd hope he understands)...& in case he asks my answer is no the "globe" is not warming...& that is my final answer...did I win a prize ? We will all win a prize in the form of higher taxes, higher costs of living , a dimished capacity to earn & a degraded quality of life at the hands of the enviro-nazis!
Trackback| 3.19.09 @ 4:31PM
The American Spectator : You've Got to Have He..., on article, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Last Word| 3.19.09 @ 7:03PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaTcsyNrEec
A documentary film crew accompanied Balog, and their footage along with Balog's work will be featured in the Mar. 24 NOVA and National Geographic special Extreme Ice. Balog's photographs are also on display in his new book Extreme Ice Now: Vanishing Glaciers and Changing Climate: A Progress Report.
But then again to you guys National Geographic would be considered 'junk' science.
Heather| 3.19.09 @ 9:54PM
NG is liberal--they push junk science to gain power. Like all of you marxists. Go to hell!
Christopher SaveTheSharks| 3.19.09 @ 10:56PM
Brilliantly written, Peter. Way to go.
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Brat Magursky| 3.20.09 @ 1:30PM
The primary reason GW\Green Agenda is a predominantly liberal issue is that they want the rest of civilized society to live in the same misery they themselves wake up to everyday because of their misguided ideology, code of ethics & feel good politics, valid science aside it's that plain & simple!
Dave Lincoln| 3.20.09 @ 7:22PM
"Daft as David Lincol'n 's assertion may be. it is not too late for him to rectify his ignorance of my politics the old fashioned way. By reading my publications . A link has been provided"
ha.. anyone that uses such words as "daft" is not an engineer. I would only believe climate theories and computer models that were put out by a real engineer, preferably a mech. E. The scientists are just having fun and keeping the gravy train rolling with this stuff. I'd take it seriously if I saw a computer model that was made 5 years ago that came even CLOSE to modeling the subsequent 5 years' climates. There is no such thing out there. (not to mention that none of the models even claim to take into account naturally-occurring effects, which are, unfortuately, not really known in detail yet).
Keep the BS going, Mass Professor. The big words sound good, but send me a .jpg of a mechanical engineering degree (of yours) and I'll listen to you. Otherwise, STFU - UDKS.
I'd almost rather read the rantings of a computer program... almost.
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 12:34AM
Learning Gospel - Five-year-olds taught philosophy of Plato in bid to encourage readi links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 7:06AM
Astronomy and Space Products - Entertainment Calendar - Northwest Herald | Consumer P links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 4:00PM
Astronomy and Space Products - Generating Giant Galaxies - Astrobiology Magazine | Co links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.15.09 @ 10:00PM
Astronomy and Space Products - Boston Micromachines Founder Dr. Thomas Bifano Awarded links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.17.09 @ 2:38PM
Global warming score - Page 2 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 6.18.09 @ 2:07AM
Magnetic Wrap, on Magnetic Wrap, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.11.09 @ 12:27PM
test links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 11.3.09 @ 1:32PM
how to fix bad credit, on how to fix bad credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: