The American Spectator

John| 3.30.09 @ 6:26AM

Dear sir,

I would like to draw attention to the following report, which is absent from your strongly worded argument:

'Climate Change and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, A Review', a document released by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) on March 12. This report shows that the region is likely to see an average four degrees celsius increase in temperature by 2100. This follows an estimated increase of one degree celsius in the 20th century.

A fair overview of the sources on this issue is necessary for any kind of meaningful dialogue between parties on either side. In particular, it is important to address longer term, rather than short term.

Kind regards,
John

Iaidoka| 3.30.09 @ 7:04AM

So the UN can only "estimate" a change in temperature during a time period already past and therefore documented, but also states that it is "likely" that we will see an even larger increase in the future which is by definition, not documented.

Sure.

El Rey| 3.30.09 @ 7:24AM

David Mathews spouts the wisdom of a fool.

And as the planet cools, people like him will only get more and more irrational 9and hateful) in their tirades.

Melvin| 3.30.09 @ 7:41AM

Global Warming's relation to science is like bull squeeze to gold.

Wes| 3.30.09 @ 8:05AM

David,

I wish you'd tell us what you really think. Don't hold back. By the way, have you been to any good lynchings lately?

Gotta work. This has been fun. Everyone have a great day.

RustyG| 3.30.09 @ 8:23AM

This is the second global warming article I've read on AmSpec where Dave has shouted in the comments "the sky is falling". Actually, Dave never points to any facts or rebutts any points in the article, he just repeats that anyone who disagrees is a dumb Christian conservative.

Dave writes "Conservatives really need to start living in the 21st century. The world will move on with or without you". Not if cap & trade is in place Dave. The world will slow down and the clock will be turned back like the article points out.

I await your brilliant reply. The global alarmist must be thrilled to have you speak for them.

Bram| 3.30.09 @ 8:25AM

The trolls are busy today.

Any debate or discussion has to be turned into a childish game of insults. I believe it is driven by the knowledge that they would lose any debate based on scientific method and logic. A playground shouting match, however, is something David and his type are perfectly suited for.

stu.b.con| 3.30.09 @ 8:51AM

Like usual, Davey can't be bothered with the facts only the emotion and drivel. Your filibustering this site for the obamatard only serves to antagonize. You are one pathetic tool. Have you been fitted for your brown shirt and jack boots yet? f off

Mark H| 3.30.09 @ 9:07AM

Dear David,

*"These conservatives who deny that Global Warming is happening are equivalent to those conservatives who denied the existence of a Housing Bubble. Conservatives live in a perpetual state of irrational self-delusion. "

Conservatives denied the existence of a housing bubble? Pretty much sums up everything you've ever written. Bass ackwards as usual. But, you are funny.

Indiana Alex| 3.30.09 @ 9:18AM

Wasn't it Barney Frank that continued to deny any issues with Fannie and Freddie?

I can't say that I would much welcome him into the conservative fold.

His ideas are clearly misguided by too much faith in government.

Much like the trolls.

owyheewine| 3.30.09 @ 9:27AM

I'd like to challenge DM to exhibit his scientific knowledge by explaining the thermodynamics of man caused global warming. I expect a venom filled response with no science.

Bram| 3.30.09 @ 9:47AM

David,

Thank you for driving home my point. I appreciate the support.

Bram| 3.30.09 @ 10:09AM

Well now my comment just looks silly.

nemcc| 3.30.09 @ 10:09AM

I think David's discuussion of science is pretty humerous. The "global warming" supporters claim that it is scientific "fact". This ignors the basic scientific method. To wit - when a phnomenon is observed, a scientist will provide an educated guess,or hypothesis, to explain that phenomenon. If, after testing, the hypothesis appears correct, it is then elevated to the status of "theory". The global warming hypothesis has tested poorly, very poorly. Ergo, at this point it can not even be refered to as a theory. Persons who are truly interested in "science" do not make catagorical claims of this nature. There are numerous real scientists out there who beleive that the whole thing has become a scam. Hanson and Al Gore do not make a consensus.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 10:25AM

Hello nemcc,

* "I think David's discuussion of science is pretty humerous. The "global warming" supporters claim that it is scientific "fact". This ignors the basic scientific method. "

Oh God, a Christian fundamentalist is going to lecture scientists about the proper functioning of science. Creationism anyone?

* "To wit - when a phnomenon is observed, a scientist will provide an educated guess,or hypothesis, to explain that phenomenon. If, after testing, the hypothesis appears correct, it is then elevated to the status of "theory". The global warming hypothesis has tested poorly, very poorly. "

You are speaking like an ignorant, uneducated fool. The global warming "theory" is established upon the laws of physics and has stood for over a century of scientific experimentation.

Conservatives really need to start reading books, ya know!

* "Ergo, at this point it can not even be refered to as a theory. Persons who are truly interested in "science" do not make catagorical claims of this nature. There are numerous real scientists out there who beleive that the whole thing has become a scam. Hanson and Al Gore do not make a consensus. "

People who get their science from Talk Radio and Fox News speak in this ignorant fashion. Conservatives ... got education?

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 10:28AM

Hello owyweewine,

* "I'd like to challenge DM to exhibit his scientific knowledge by explaining the thermodynamics of man caused global warming. "

You know what ... conservatives wouldn't have to ask such dumb, uninformed, uneducated questions if they actually bothered to read the science rather than read worthless tripe written by idiots such as Paul Chesser.

Paul Chesser's a standard Idiot-Conservative ... babbling a bunch of scientifically illiterate ignorance and then boasting about his own ignorance.

Paul Chesser represents conservativism accurately in that sense.

owyheewine| 3.30.09 @ 10:58AM

DM
I know the science. The koolaid drinkers think that CO2 absorbs energy from sunlight with a certain wavelength, and emit energy at a lower wavelength, which they claim is less efficient at energy transfer. This explaination is ludicrous to anyone with practical knowledge of energy transfer, nonetheless, it is the basis. Now you know.

stewpified| 3.30.09 @ 11:03AM

Hey Mathews: How did Paul Ehrlich's "science" work out in his "Population Bomb" theory? Science is determined by the scientific method, not a show of hands.

Jack| 3.30.09 @ 11:08AM

No one with a job would have the time to seek out and respond to every potential criticism on any issue of THE ONE. DM, is this your job? And if it is, it must be very frustrating knowing that at the end of the day it all went for naught. Does THE ONE smile at you when he walks past your cubicle in the basement? Maybe that is enough for you.

Craig| 3.30.09 @ 11:09AM

Re: DM's comments...
"an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea......"

Stan Redmond| 3.30.09 @ 11:32AM

Dave says: "You are speaking like an ignorant, uneducated fool. The global warming "theory" is established upon the laws of physics and has stood for over a century of scientific experimentation. "

I find that incredibly funny. The past century has seen scare after scare of catastrophic climate changes caused by man. From warming to cooling to warming to cooling and now the current profitable craze of global warming. Dave, are you old enough to remember the global cooling ice age scare of the 70s?

JP| 3.30.09 @ 11:58AM

John,
You wrote:

'Climate Change and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, A Review', a document released by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean "(ECLAC) on March 12. This report shows that the region is likely to see an average four degrees celsius increase in temperature by 2100. This follows an estimated increase of one degree celsius in the 20th century"

That problem with that report is that it runs counter to the IPCC's own report concerning AGW and GHGs and how they will manifest themselves. For the tropics, AGW will occur aloft in the mid tropical tropesphere and not at the surface. GHGs (Greenhouse gases), according to the IPCC will produce over time a definite upper level "hotspot". I stress upper level and not the surface. Despite the rise in CO2 concentrations over the last 15 years, there has been no warming aloft in the tropics.

This benchmark I highlight because atmospheric temperature variations in the tropics are quite rare. Even in the Little Ice Age, temperatures remainded fairly constant. Preciptation is another entirely different matter, as precipitation patterns in the tropics do vary considerably. But these variations can be tied directly to changes in well known atmospheric oscillations like the Walker Circulation and the MJO (Madden-Jullian Oscillation) . Even the rather brutal 2003 European summer (3500 died) can be correlated to a rather intesne period of the postive Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (MJO).

As you noticed, I didn't use any invective, but I did use well known and well researched scientific explainations.

Iaidoka| 3.30.09 @ 12:12PM

DM,

Please tell us, with your vast scientific knowledge, what part of the electro-magnetic spectrum is infrared. Wavelengths in microns will suffice. Then please tell us what are the absorption bands of CO2.

nemcc| 3.30.09 @ 12:15PM

David

Again, I laugh. "christian fundamentalist???? Wow! Have you got the wrong take!

As for talk radio - sorry, don't get much of that as I can't have any radios in my place of work.

As for ignorance of physics, yes there is a greenhouse effect. What we refer to as air being the primary greenhouse gas. Were it not so, as the Earth rotated and the sun went down, the newly dark surface would lose heat so rapidly as to approach absolute zero.

That is hardly the question. What works in a controlled environment that does not replicate the real environment is not particularly relevant. What is at question is the effects of adding greenhouse gasses in the real world. Using a computer model to extraplolate to the real world is problematic at best. Particularly when the modelers can include less then 2% of the variables. That would be like folding up a sheet of paper into an airplane and then using that as your basis for establishing the flight charactoristics of an SR71.

To accept the prognostications of these computer models, one has to first believe that the Earth's climates are in an absolute state of equilibrium and that the only variable of interest is what mankind does. Hardly a good basis for scientific inquiry.

On the contrary, it appears to me that the proponents of this scam are the religous fundamentalists. When I was in high school long ago, I was told that mankind's impact on the environment was causing irreversable global cooling. That it was a scientific fact! And that by 1985, the Earth would have cooled so much that agriculture would be unable to adapt and that starvation would ensue leaving at least 1/3 of the US population dead of malnutrition.

When that didn't happen and the Earth actually began to warm, the fundamentalists merely changed the outcome. Instead of freezing, we would all fry. But all for the same reason. Sounds like a bunch of fundamentalist wingnuts to me.

I believed them back in the 70s because I was young and uneducated. Now I know better. Whatever the calamity dejure is, it is always the result of unbridled capitalism and the cure is always to establish a strong socialist world government.

Dave, you need to get out of the church pews and learn that all is not as the priest have told you.

Matthew Vadum| 3.30.09 @ 12:35PM

Excellent title for your article, Paul!

Paul from SA| 3.30.09 @ 1:29PM

David, go to your room!

Refuting Global Warming Alarmists can be tiring and repetitive, since most liberals don’t accept reason and logic as rejoinders against their emotional hysteria. Indeed, there is often little reasoning with liberals, many of whom seem to be intellectually compromised and refuse to debate honestly and openly. Many even seem to burst into hysteria if their credos are questioned, or facts brought are to bear which clearly refute their theories. We’ve all witnessed their conduct and spin around anything that resembles reality.
Gregory Young, The American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/the_cure_for_global_warming_al.html

PolishKnight| 3.30.09 @ 1:41PM

David Mathews, there's no need to "do the science" to disprove global warming. It's only necessarily to open your window to get the weather report. Global warming protests in the middle of blizzards are absolutely hilarious. It's cool aid religious fundamentalism that makes creationalism appear rational by comparison.

It's funny that all the shaming ploys of the old style liberal/marxism have come back to haunt them. Conservatives are not puritanical sex prudes, it's the feminists who scream sexual harassment (and have Bill Clinton take the fall), a total disinterest in the middle class (to be sacrificed for government workers and fatcat labor unions) and you seeth with racism against whites. It's so hypocritical and absurd. You realize that without us, working people who generate wealth, your marxist fantasies would fall to the floor in a second. You run your computer on coal generated power. At least the unibomber tried to be consistent and write out his technology bashing screeds by hand or old typewriter. Give it a try sometime.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 1:49PM

I read all of DM's post with the idea of refuting his scientific statements with others that contradict him. How surprised I was to see that Mr. Science didn't actually have any scientific statements or arguments. Just childish name calling. He never does, since he has no education in science, or indeed, in anything else if one had to judge solely by his posts.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:10PM

Hello owyheewine,

* "I know the science. The koolaid drinkers think that CO2 absorbs energy from sunlight with a certain wavelength, and emit energy at a lower wavelength, which they claim is less efficient at energy transfer. This explaination is ludicrous to anyone with practical knowledge of energy transfer, nonetheless, it is the basis. Now you know. "

God, conservatives certainly are scientifically illiterate. Let's see ... should I believe the scientists or should I believe the Talk Radio crowd?

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:14PM

Hello stewpified,

* "Hey Mathews: How did Paul Ehrlich's "science" work out in his "Population Bomb" theory? Science is determined by the scientific method, not a show of hands. "

The population bubble is similar in many ways to the housing bubble. Everyone with a modicum of rationality knew that the housing bubble would collapse ... the only question was, when? While housing prices were skyrocketing through the stratosphere, naive people insisted that they couldn't help but keep on going up forever.

The human population bubble will burst in the 21st century and the human population collapse is going to be something spectacular and horrific to see.

If you live long enough to verify the collapse of the population bubble with your own eyes you will regret having lived so long. You will likely wonder how it is that you missed the Rapture, unaware that there isn't any Rapture or Second Coming to save anyone from the horrors which are coming.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:16PM

Hello Jack,

* "No one with a job would have the time to seek out and respond to every potential criticism on any issue of THE ONE. DM, is this your job? And if it is, it must be very frustrating knowing that at the end of the day it all went for naught. Does THE ONE smile at you when he walks past your cubicle in the basement? Maybe that is enough for you. "

It is not frustating to know that there are a bunch of scientific illiterates who are engaged in a futile war with science which they have already lost and also engaged in a futile political battle which they have also already lost.

Don't worry, though ... you'll always have Rush Limbaugh.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:20PM

Hello Stan,

* "I find that incredibly funny. The past century has seen scare after scare of catastrophic climate changes caused by man. From warming to cooling to warming to cooling and now the current profitable craze of global warming. Dave, are you old enough to remember the global cooling ice age scare of the 70s? "

Do you want to know what is even funnier ... there are a bunch of people who believe a whole bunch of ancient myths, lies and absurd legands written two thousand years ago telling them fables about God creating a primate to love Him and promising the primate eternal salvation in Heaven for obeying Him.

Remember when people used to believe those absurd stories and fairy tales?

As to the so-called Global Cooling scare of the 1970's ... you are referencing an article in Newsweek magazine and completely neglecting what scientists during that era were actually saying.

But you cannot blame conservatives for being ignorant and scientifically illiterate.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:21PM

Hello JP,

* "That problem with that report is that it runs counter to the IPCC's own report concerning AGW and GHGs and how they will manifest themselves. For the tropics, AGW will occur aloft in the mid tropical tropesphere and not at the surface. GHGs (Greenhouse gases), according to the IPCC will produce over time a definite upper level "hotspot". I stress upper level and not the surface. Despite the rise in CO2 concentrations over the last 15 years, there has been no warming aloft in the tropics. "

You are reasoning like a creationist, JP: How can evolution be true if there are missing links?

Needless to say, science disagrees with your interpretation of the evidence.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:28PM

Hello nemcc,

* "That is hardly the question. What works in a controlled environment that does not replicate the real environment is not particularly relevant. What is at question is the effects of adding greenhouse gasses in the real world. Using a computer model to extraplolate to the real world is problematic at best. Particularly when the modelers can include less then 2% of the variables. That would be like folding up a sheet of paper into an airplane and then using that as your basis for establishing the flight charactoristics of an SR71. "

Oh my, conservatives are nothing if not stupid and uneducated.

Models are, by definition, more simple than the real world. This is true of the computer models predicting the impacts of climate change just as it is true of the computer models predicting the airflow over a wing of an airplane.

Nonetheless, conservatives rely upon computer models all the time. You are ignorant of your reliance upon these models but nonetheless they are used for nearly every technological product that you own.

* "To accept the prognostications of these computer models, one has to first believe that the Earth's climates are in an absolute state of equilibrium and that the only variable of interest is what mankind does. Hardly a good basis for scientific inquiry. "

Sure as hell, you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you should read a book or at least make a rudementary effort to gain an elementary school level knowledge of the subject before spouting conservative nonsense.

* "On the contrary, it appears to me that the proponents of this scam are the religous fundamentalists. When I was in high school long ago, I was told that mankind's impact on the environment was causing irreversable global cooling. That it was a scientific fact! And that by 1985, the Earth would have cooled so much that agriculture would be unable to adapt and that starvation would ensue leaving at least 1/3 of the US population dead of malnutrition. "

The pollution in question during this time was particulate matter in the atmosphere. That problem was solved, incidentally, by installing scrubbers in power plants and catalytic converters on cars.

* "When that didn't happen and the Earth actually began to warm, the fundamentalists merely changed the outcome. Instead of freezing, we would all fry. But all for the same reason. Sounds like a bunch of fundamentalist wingnuts to me. "

You are reasoning like a creationist, incidentally. Not only are you absolutely unaware of what you are talking about you misinterpret your ignorance and jump to conclusions which have nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence.

Read a book!

* "I believed them back in the 70s because I was young and uneducated. Now I know better. Whatever the calamity dejure is, it is always the result of unbridled capitalism and the cure is always to establish a strong socialist world government. "

You believed no such thing back in the 1970's. You've created a false memory to sustain your irrational anti-scientific beliefs.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:30PM

Hello Paul,

* "Refuting Global Warming Alarmists can be tiring and repetitive, since most liberals don’t accept reason and logic as rejoinders against their emotional hysteria. Indeed, there is often little reasoning with liberals, many of whom seem to be intellectually compromised and refuse to debate honestly and openly. Many even seem to burst into hysteria if their credos are questioned, or facts brought are to bear which clearly refute their theories. "

God, you people are really delusional if you imagine that your kooky viewpoint represents reasoning and logic. It doesn't.

Your side lost this argument a long time ago.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:34PM

Hello Polishknight,

* "David Mathews, there's no need to "do the science" to disprove global warming. It's only necessarily to open your window to get the weather report. Global warming protests in the middle of blizzards are absolutely hilarious. "

Previous generations proved that the world is flat and doesn't move using a similar method.

Look out your window: The horizon is flat. So the world is flat!

Look out your window: The sun moves, not the Earth. The Earth doesn't move!

And so forth ... conservatives are about the most scientifically illiterate people on the planet. It is easy to understand why you people continue to believe ancient fairy tales.

* "You run your computer on coal generated power. "

I didn't create this world and won't take any blame for its existence. I can only speak the truth to a dying civilization using its dying technologies.

Some day this civilization will end and with it all of these technologies. Future generations will have nothing ... not even a healthy planet capable of sustaining their existence.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:36PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "I read all of DM's post with the idea of refuting his scientific statements with others that contradict him. How surprised I was to see that Mr. Science didn't actually have any scientific statements or arguments. Just childish name calling. He never does, since he has no education in science, or indeed, in anything else if one had to judge solely by his posts. "

Boo hoo hoo ... the Talk Radio crowd likes to boast in its own ignorance evidently because it is so delusional and backward-looking that you fail to realize that your side lost.

If you want to learn science, I suggest that you educate yourself. If you cannot educate yourself that just means that you are a uneducated conservative drone.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 2:38PM

Global cooling was endorsed by countless scientists, and particulate matter was only a part of what they saw as the cause. Greenhouse effect was the heart of their argument.

I have only the rudiments of a scientific education, having once majored in astronomy for awhile. However, I read scientific magazines and books and make the best judgment I can based on what I read. I'm sure Dave doesn't have a scientific education at all, given his illogical approach to argument.

I note that Dr. Freeman Dyson is one of the global warming skeptics. Since he is one of the most respected scientists of the age, I wonder how Dr. Science accounts for the number of prominent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners and climatologists who disagree with the AGW premise?

Of course, I already know what DM will say. They are all stupid, they are all bought off, they are all senile or corrupt. In short, no science and no reason whatsoever.

There are scientifically derived reasons for thinking that AGW is possible, and scientifically derived reasons for thinking it is not. We'll never hear either from DM or jharp or any of the other trolls.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 2:54PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "Global cooling was endorsed by countless scientists, and particulate matter was only a part of what they saw as the cause. Greenhouse effect was the heart of their argument. "

No. You are getting your scientific illiterate babble from Talk Radio.

You really do need to read a book!

* "I have only the rudiments of a scientific education ... "

That's abundantly obvious.

* "I note that Dr. Freeman Dyson is one of the global warming skeptics. Since he is one of the most respected scientists of the age, I wonder how Dr. Science accounts for the number of prominent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners and climatologists who disagree with the AGW premise? "

Freeman Dyson isn't a climatologist. He is an old kook who exhausted his mind of its greatest ideas four decades ago.

* "Of course, I already know what DM will say. They are all stupid, they are all bought off, they are all senile or corrupt. In short, no science and no reason whatsoever. "

That's true. You people have got to begin dealing with reality.

* "There are scientifically derived reasons for thinking that AGW is possible, and scientifically derived reasons for thinking it is not. We'll never hear either from DM or jharp or any of the other trolls. "

You are speaking ignorant tripe and nothing else. Since you are an old man without a scientific education I suppose it is easy to understand why you remain obstinate in your ignorance.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 3:04PM

I predicted exactly what DM would say. Making that accurate prediction puts me one prediction ahead of the AGW scientists.

Since it would be economically impossible to implement the type of CO2 controls necessary (according to the AGW crew's own statements) to affect any appreciable climate change, time is on our side. As the predictions of the alarmists continue to fail, we must continue to remind people of what was said by these people last year, five years ago, and ten years ago. We can make democracy work for us. If any controls are implemented, the economic pinch will alarm people enough to think about electing more rational politicians. Given the current shaky support for a radical approach to AGW, I doubt that many significant curbs on CO2 emissions will be implemented.

Iaidoka| 3.30.09 @ 3:17PM

Since he answered every one else, I can only guess that he didn't answer my questions because he has no clue what the electro magnetic spectrum is, never mind absorption bands. Figures.

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 3:19PM

Bigleo

Maybe old Davie should google DR Hansen. He too went for the cooling tale.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 3:46PM

Hello Iaidoka,

* "Please tell us, with your vast scientific knowledge, what part of the electro-magnetic spectrum is infrared. Wavelengths in microns will suffice. Then please tell us what are the absorption bands of CO2.

* "Since he answered every one else, I can only guess that he didn't answer my questions because he has no clue what the electro magnetic spectrum is, never mind absorption bands. Figures. "

Blah blah blah ... scientifically illiterate conservative prattle.

Look, conservatives, if you want a question answered make certain that you ask intelligent questions.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 3:49PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "Since it would be economically impossible to implement the type of CO2 controls necessary (according to the AGW crew's own statements) to affect any appreciable climate change, time is on our side."

Animals that value their economy more than their survival go extinct.

* "As the predictions of the alarmists continue to fail, we must continue to remind people of what was said by these people last year, five years ago, and ten years ago."

Blah blah blah ... scientifically illiterate talk radio blather. Conservatives aren't getting any more intelligent, that much is certain!

* "We can make democracy work for us. If any controls are implemented, the economic pinch will alarm people enough to think about electing more rational politicians."

If people want rational politicians they must first avoid electing Christian fundamentalists fruitcakes.

* "Given the current shaky support for a radical approach to AGW, I doubt that many significant curbs on CO2 emissions will be implemented. "

So the Homo sapiens will go extinct. Can't say that the fate is unearned, unjust or undeserved.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 3:51PM

Hello Dustoff,

* "Maybe old Davie should google DR Hansen. He too went for the cooling tale. "

Conservatives should become better educated so that they might avoid parroting idiotic talk radio blather.

All this scientific ignorance explains why conservatives remain Christian fundamentalist creationists. They are living in the 19th century and regressing.

Marc Jeric| 3.30.09 @ 3:53PM

In the 1970's - globaloney cooling scam; when it did not work we had
In the 1990's - globaloney warming hoax; when that did not work we have now
In 2009 - climate change flimflam.
In order to understand all this one has to translate: green means red, as in communist. Nationalize everyhing and put our David in charge! Under the benevolent guidance of that inventor of Internet and re-inventor of government Al Gore! Well, he got the Nobel Prize - but then Carter (functional moron) and Arafat (terrorist and spiritual father of Al-Qaeda) also got it.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 3:53PM

Dave Mathews is practicing up his hunting and gathering skills for the apocalypse. Wait till he finds that Twinkies don't grow on trees.

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 4:04PM

Davie
Conservatives should become better educated so that they might avoid parroting idiotic talk radio blather.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

So in other words. I won't go check, because if I do. Dustoff well be right and I'll still be a fool.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 4:33PM

Hello Marc Jeric,

* "In the 1970's - globaloney cooling scam; when it did not work we had
In the 1990's - globaloney warming hoax; when that did not work we have now
In 2009 - climate change flimflam."

Conservatives are such bitter losers ... you people lost this fight but you'll keep on fighting until the end of time. Just like the creationists with their Piltdown Man Hoax security blanket.

* "n order to understand all this one has to translate: green means red, as in communist."

Extinction has a pretty negative impact upon capitalist economies, too. Not that the capitalists care. They treat the planet like a sewer and hope that some future generation picks up the tab. Unfortunately for them, that generation is now.

* "Nationalize everyhing and put our David in charge! Under the benevolent guidance of that inventor of Internet and re-inventor of government Al Gore! Well, he got the Nobel Prize - but then Carter (functional moron) and Arafat (terrorist and spiritual father of Al-Qaeda) also got it. "

Blah blah blah ... dittohead drone talk.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 4:34PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "Dave Mathews is practicing up his hunting and gathering skills for the apocalypse. Wait till he finds that Twinkies don't grow on trees. "

You couldn't portray conservatives as any less intelligent even if you tried. Better get back to your astonomy ... you might want to read up on that, too, because it has advanced a bunch over the last forty years!

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 4:36PM

Hello Dustoff,

* "So in other words. I won't go check, because if I do. Dustoff well be right and I'll still be a fool. "

If you want to direct me to a website, Dustoff, provide the link. If you want to engage in ignorant talk radio idiot-speak ... well, that's all you've got, isn't it?

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 4:36PM

You know, it's fun watching Davie become the butt of the jokes.

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 4:45PM

I know your very lazy davie, so I did it for you.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 4:55PM

Hello Dustoff,

* "The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. "

Yes, Dustoff, it is true. The problem was addressed and solved by installing scrubbing technology on smokestacks and catalytic converters on cars.

Only scientifically illiterare conservatives would claim that the dust problem refutes the greenhouse gas problem.

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 4:58PM

Like it or NOT davie.

I was right and as always. You were wrong!

By hey, thanks for playing...

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 5:04PM

I'm waiting for Dave to lecture me on astronomy. That would be fascinating. I have so much to learn from him.

owyheewine| 3.30.09 @ 5:08PM

James Hansen used the Milne equations, developed in 1922, to calculate radiation cooling, basically when the sun goes down. Since scientists didn't have satellite data, or much of any data, on atmospheric thickness, the equations assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. That leads those using those equations to underestimate how fast the atmosphere cools when solar heating stops. That's why all of the models predict atmospheric warming.
The warming that occurs every spring has me working in my vineyard, where I get more intelligent conversation from the silent grapevines than certain vitriolic warming ignorants provide.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 5:20PM

Hello Dustoff,

* "I was right and as always. You were wrong! "

Whatever ...

Big Leo says ...

* "I'm waiting for Dave to lecture me on astronomy. That would be fascinating. I have so much to learn from him. "

You need to learn a little about climatology before I start to teach you about astronomy.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 5:23PM

Hello owyheewine,

* "James Hansen used the Milne equations, developed in 1922, to calculate radiation cooling, basically when the sun goes down. Since scientists didn't have satellite data, or much of any data, on atmospheric thickness, the equations assume that the atmosphere is infinitely thick. That leads those using those equations to underestimate how fast the atmosphere cools when solar heating stops. That's why all of the models predict atmospheric warming. "

Oh God, an anonymous conservative poster knows that the atmosphere isn't infinitely deep ... unlike those climatologists with their Nobel Prize and Ph.D.s and thousands of peer reviewed papers!

Conservatives really are scientific illiterates!

* "The warming that occurs every spring has me working in my vineyard, where I get more intelligent conversation from the silent grapevines than certain vitriolic warming ignorants provide. "

Your grapevine knows more about the climate than you ever could.

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 5:28PM

Davie
Conservatives really are scientific illiterates!
++++++++++++++

Really dave, well I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. Which I know you haven't. You can't so instead you'll post BS and think you can de-grade me with your child-like comments.
. Not working fool.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 5:34PM

Actually Dave, you never tell us anything whatsoever about science, climatology, astronomy, or any rational subject whatsoever. All you do is say we're wrong and you're right. Maybe I am wrong about AGW. I've been wrong before. But there's nothing you've said that would influence anybody to believe in AGW or whatever it is you believe in, nothing at all.

How old are you, really?

Iaidoka| 3.30.09 @ 5:44PM

Right. As I expected. And he calls me scientifically illiterate.

The electro magnetic spectrum is pretty basic stuff. At least it is for those of us who actually have any real scientific knowledge.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 5:54PM

Hello David Mathews,

Oh wait now I'm talking to myself. I've gotta tingly feeling going up my leg. "Whatever ..."

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 5:58PM

Hello Dustoff,

* "Really dave, well I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. Which I know you haven't. You can't so instead you'll post BS and think you can de-grade me with your child-like comments. "

It is not necessary to prove an irrelevant topic wrong. There was a dust problem and our civilization solved that problem.

Next?

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 6:00PM

Hello Big Leo,

* "Actually Dave, you never tell us anything whatsoever about science, climatology, astronomy, or any rational subject whatsoever. All you do is say we're wrong and you're right. Maybe I am wrong about AGW. I've been wrong before. But there's nothing you've said that would influence anybody to believe in AGW or whatever it is you believe in, nothing at all. "

You are wrong about AGW and a whole lot of other things, too. But I don't need to convince you of anything.

You need to educate yourself ... you can begin by turning off Talk Radio and Fox News.

* "How old are you, really? "

Thankfully not as old as you.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 6:01PM

Hello Iaidoka,

* "The electro magnetic spectrum is pretty basic stuff. At least it is for those of us who actually have any real scientific knowledge. "

Wow, I'm impressed. You've had a high school education!

If you have an argument, let's hear it ...

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 6:08PM

Hello David Mathews,

No need to argue with myself, stupid is as stupid does. I should be impressed I've managed to carry on a conversation with myself! Amazing!

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 6:12PM

Hello David Mathews,

Man have I really spun myself into a tizzy!

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 6:22PM

Hello "David Mathews - Fox News",

It is so funny to see a conservative driven completely insane by losing an argument!

Too bad that you losers cannot handle science. Too bad that you losers get your science from Fox News!

Oh well, maybe Jesus will come along and Rapture you to Heaven.

David Mathews| 3.30.09 @ 7:27PM

Hello David Mathews,

Help me baby Jesus, help me Oprah Winfrey... No one will talk to me. God I'm such a loser. Oh wait I take back the "God" comment. "Gore" I'm such a loser!

Kevin| 3.30.09 @ 8:05PM

OK. I am a physicist, and an atheist. There is no evidence for anthropogenic global warming. None. I have looked for over a year now for the alarmist' case to support their claims. They don't have one. They point to "consensus". The consensus comes from political organizations, and from rent-seeking corporations and interests. You see, the alarmists are actually dupes supported by the likes of big energy - who will make vast sums of money building useless windmills. It is cute when it is little hippie chicks going green, but it is just more corruption when it is picked up by the government and their statist sheep.

The scientific evidence supports global warming being driven by solar activity and long-term climate variations. The ice age is ending, and we are getting warmer, and we should be rejoicing that fact.

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 8:05PM

Ahhh darn David m.
Another loyal person is asking questions on GW.

Dang Davie, just not your day

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&em;

Dustoff| 3.30.09 @ 8:11PM

Now davie, this is good too. Let's see, fly around in a 757 that burns fuel like crazy. Yet we must help mother earth... You've got to wonder what the carbon foot print is for this bird....

Tell me about that G/W again... LOL

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/009779.html

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 8:31PM

Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Kevin. I thought about anthropogenic global warming for about two years before deciding. My scientific training was in astronomy. There seemed to be flaws at every level; how the data was gathered and developed, how the computer models were generated, and especially in how the conclusions were drawn from the data. The same problems existed in the global cooling circus of thirty years ago, where I drew the same conclusions.

Could there be global warming? It's possible, but the data isn't very convincing. Could global warming be anthropogenic global warming? Highly unlikely, and there is zero real confirmable evidence.

Kevin| 3.30.09 @ 8:52PM

Big Leo: I must admit I was surprised at how lacking the evidence actually was. I assumed initially that the evidence was subtle enough to believe, but perhaps ambiguous enough to make it hard to judge either way. In fact, the only evidence for AGW is the output of a bunch of computer models. The models have variances, and putting the models together makes the variances so large that all data is deemed "consistent" with the models. So, the worse the models are, the better the agreement with the data! Nice.

Then I looked at the politics and money behind all this (as well documented in the book "Red Hot Lies"). It is amazing that a group of persons who are so anti-capitalist and pro-environment have been so utterly duped. They are being used to add a moral rightousness to this cause, which is now only aimed at increasing the power of the state, and increasing the profits of large corporations.

Finally, as an environmentalist (like many scientists) myself, I am most appalled at the fact that this is driving us further into climate ruination. What are we going to do with all of the batteries in the hybrid cars. Those are PROVEN to be toxic, and require 100K miles just to break even energetically (i.e., to pay back in energy savings the oil energy that went into making the batteries). Ditto for solar energy, which takes seven years to pay off its oil debit. It is all a sham, and the environment and our freedom will be the price paid for it.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 9:13PM

The subtlety of the argument frankly confused me. I ran over the evidence over and over and thought I must be missing something. Finally, I realized there was no verifiable data there to miss.

Your point about the oil debit of batteries and solar power are seldom made and necessary for the argument. Also, when arguing solar power with nonscience enthusiasts, it's frustrating to demonstrate how little energy is actually in a cubic foot of reflected sunlight. The blithe response is, "Oh, but research will enable us to extract much, much more." More than is actually there? My favorite was listening to a loon describing how to run a car by putting a wind generator on it so that the wind from the car going down the road would power the car . . . sorry, I can't say where it was going from there because I fell to the floor stunned.

Iaidoka| 3.30.09 @ 9:19PM

"Wow, I'm impressed. You've had a high school education!

If you have an argument, let's hear it ..."

I already asked you a couple questions. Questions that you are obviously incapable of answering.

And yes, I do have a high school education. In fact, more than that. Are you even out of high school yet? Have you even made it to high school yet?

Kevin| 3.30.09 @ 10:26PM

Regarding solar and wind. Yes, there is an appalling lack of understanding of energy DENSITY. The wind and the sun energy is spread out like a tissue, and requires a stupifying area to collect any substantial amount of energy. Also, since one must go where the sun/wind is, and this is ususally far from the population, one needs huge transmission infrastructure to move the generated power. The entire infrastructure required is, itself, and environmental nightmare.

This is compared to uranium, which has huge energy density, produces no carbon emission (if that matters), and can be located near the existing transmission grid - all with a fuel that can be reprocessed. Only a stultifying ideology prevents us from exploiting this energy source.

Big Leo| 3.30.09 @ 10:43PM

The problem with nuclear has nothing to do with the science of the atomic pile, but of the paranoid fear of radiation, which is invisible and undetectable by the ordinary senses. The language of antinuclear activists is not the language of science, but of psychopathology.

Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 12:42AM

I almost hate to ask, but who is David Mathews and where did he come from?

There's some interesting analysis popping up about coordinated left-wing commentary/disruption/trolling/whatever among conservative and even neutral website comment boards, and he seems a prime example.

This string of back and forth is hilarious, especially the hijacking of his meme about 2/3 of the way in. It only loses its black humor aspect when you consider the extent that it's essentially a classic example of destroying the commons, which, ironically, is the point they're trying to make about global warming.

Still - Dave seems to be quite the expert if he says so himself.

Ron| 3.31.09 @ 1:55AM

Hey Dave,
I just have to let you know, as someone sitting on the sidelines, your arguments are a little weak. Do you even read what you are writing? All I see is a whole lot of fluff and no substance. I also see dismissive and arrogant condescension toward those who challenge your beliefs. You obfuscate instead of just answering the question. You insult instead of persuade. If man is causing global warming, then tell me how this is taking place. I would also like to know why a few degrees warmer is so bad. I would like to know what the perfect temperature is. I do know that Greenland once supported farming, so it had to be warmer than it is now. Fish fossils have been found on mountaintops, so sea levels at one time or another were higher than they are now. Glaciers covered most of the northern hemisphere at one time, so I guess it was a lot colder at another time. As far as I know, none of these things have occurred since we started drivng cars. I have just presented an argument for continued and expanded use of automobiles for the good of mankind. Since all of the above oceanic and climate conditions occurred before the introduction of the automobile, logic reasoning would support my hypothesis. Can you make as simple an argument to support your belief in GW. If it's true, it should be easy.
Disclaimer: I am a christian. I am a conservative. I have a degree in business. I have read a lot of books (mostly historical and economics in nature). I also like listening to Rush and have for twenty years. If you are as good as you think you are; are you capable of answering my question knowing more about me without insulting me? I'm rooting for you!

Interested Conservative| 3.31.09 @ 2:26AM

Ron - I don't think Dave's coming back.

Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 10:38AM

Interested Conservative
_________________

Who is David M.

I know him well. For the last two years he cruises the threads on GW. Jumps on it and sprays his BS until that website kicks him. I think the count is up to 5 that I know of. Last one was Human Events, till either he was kicked or people no longer spoke with him and he left out of bordom

Dustoff| 3.31.09 @ 10:41AM

PS.... Guys.

David Mathews never talks facts..... Just insults and picks on people who believe in God. Even if you don't, he says you do???

He's a real screwball.

Iaidoka| 3.31.09 @ 4:36PM

Dustoff,

I have to ask. Are you the same Dustoff who posts on Skill-Club?

stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 3.31.09 @ 4:39PM

Mr David Global Mathews:

FYI; Great full page ad from the Cato Institute in the Washington Times today in case you needed to know any more scientists names to smear in the name of your religion.

Algore loves you!

stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 3.31.09 @ 4:41PM

Sorry; yesterday (3/31) was the ad in the Times.

I bet they haven't changed their opinions though.

stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 3.31.09 @ 11:58PM

I'm wondering why the seminar that produced David GlobalMathews picked him/her?

His responses are the lamest GlobalWarmist excuses I've seen...much more into invective than the issue.

srpaquette| 4.1.09 @ 3:25AM

We elected a socialist, and that's what we got. And when the crying liberals see their interest usurped, then we will see change, Obama style. Grab anything tied down or otherwise ,is the mantra of any good communist. I do not in the least feel any apathy for for the oil industry or the unionized auto industry.Whores who gauged the living piss out of us not even 6 mos. ago. 5 $ for gas as they realized record profits, and the shareholders too. Unfortunately the big oil, big business industrial complex will pass their blood thirsty profit margin on to us . Thank's for nothing Obama. You were better as a lawyer for Acorn, not head of state. We as a nation are weak because our children lost their direction, case in point , an elderly couple came into my restaurant with a 14 year old girl--actually turned15, the elderly couple said that they were excited about their daughters decission to keep her baby. The girl was childish and non-responsive toward her baby, so the grandmother had to sooth the childs crying. I was utterly amazed that the mother was either oblivious to her childs needs or too high to care. And my tax $s have to pay for misguided youths such as this dispicable young girl. Just plain digusted.

hgfg| 11.30.09 @ 4:07AM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

gfdgdf| 11.30.09 @ 10:22PM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac

poptropica | 4.9.10 @ 9:40PM

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You Poptropica

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. He will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. poptropica
When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. poptropica
I’ll have a full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!poptropica