The American Spectator

GM Roper| 11.28.09 @ 9:27AM

Thank you for boosting the post. However, the author was my co-blogger John Moore a terrific guy and a storm chaser.

Bob| 11.28.09 @ 10:20AM

RSM -- I guess you didn't understand that this guy is recommending a form of communism. He is recommending the destruction of intellectual property rights in favor of "information/methodology" sharing. Microsoft dominates the operating system market because their work is proprietary and they can charge for it. If they give out their trade secrets, then what good is capitalism?

Most scientists today search for funds to do their research. If they have something proprietary, they are more likely to get funding. In the case of climate data, if you are an organization that has a proprietary method, you want people to BUY that data from you. If they can do it themselves, what is the motivation to put together the model in the first place.

Our country is based on the profit motive. Don't let your hate of anything Obama change the way we do things in this country.

Regarding the climate data, there is no argument on the basic data, only on how to utilize/extrapolate the data. We know that we are in a longer term phase of global warming. Even though we've had a decade of declining temperatures, we also had a decade of declining temperatures in the early 1900's and the mid-1900's -- about every 50 years or so. Any statistical analyst would look at this data and say it is much more highly likely that this is a repeat phase of the past rather than a change in the long term trend. Get out the long term trend chart and look at the actual data.

We also know that there has been a huge rise in the CO2 levels and that the rise is due to industrialization, i.e., human activity. There is no other explanation if you actually look at the data (which I have done).

These are facts and they are indisputable except if you are a science idiot (which seems to be a trait of most Americans today). But this is where data ends and theory begins. We know the rise in CO2 is due to human activity, but we haven't proven that this rise affects global temperatures and what beta should be assigned to this relationship. Therefore, we don't know how much of the rise in temperatures is due to human activity at this juncture.

In the last couple of decades, there has been a significant increase in the acceleration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is just fact. In the next couple of decades we will see if there is an acceleration in global temperatures. If there is, it is highly probable that the main climate scientists are correct. If there is not, then they have severely overstated their case. I've learned over a lifetime that predicting the future is rather iffy. I don't know who is right -- or whether they are both right to some degree. Anyone who says they do know is a liar.

That said, it is difficult for me to support severe actions on global warming at this juncture as this will hurt our country financially. Those who believe that "green" industries will have a significant positive effect on our economy have not studied cost curves and human behavior. They won't have any real effect on our economy as the number of jobs created from this industry is very small in relation to the total number of jobs. Besides, production of these products will be done in other countries as our cost structure, especially with health care, is just too high.

These types of posts show the real educational weakness of the extreme right who eschew the study of science and education in general and also the blinders of the extreme left in following the "chicken little" syndrome.

Dixie Pixie| 11.28.09 @ 1:00PM

To: Bob ( of the cacophonous funnel head )

What in the name of sleeping kittens are you talking about.

The Global Warming Greenies at CRU have been caught falsifying data forcing a correlation between man-made CO2 production and planetary warming. The true data reveals is there is no correlation between increased CO2 levels and planetary temperatures. The entire affair was a scam for increased funding for the propagators of the scam.

White lab coats do not automatically create honesty.

Margie| 11.28.09 @ 9:02PM

...although the men in the white lab coats might well be coming for Bob, shortly. :^)>

Dixie Pixie| 11.29.09 @ 5:13PM

To: Margie

Try ''''' ....””””

Dixie Pixie| 11.29.09 @ 7:10PM

To: Margie

Sorry about the last post. I was trying for a cute pictograph of Funnel Head Bob. It worked on the Preview screen but the left arrow character was misinterpreted as HTML code. The post then blew up.

The pictograph in ASCII Hex code is ( 3F, 28, space, 3A, 2D, 7C, space, 29 )

Sorry about the error everyone.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 10:26PM

DixiePixie~
~
Oh well.
Bob~ The "extreme" right is in agreement with real science. Just not fabricated science. The Left produces phony scientific "evidence" which is par for the course. We certainly eschew that.

John Moore| 11.28.09 @ 1:13PM

Bob conflates engineering and scientific research in his assertions about communism.

The scientific method (per Popper) is about providing hypotheses that can be falsified. This cannot be done without full disclosure of the hypothesis, which includes the original data and methods of manipulating it - especially in paleoclimatology where the hypotheses is simply the time series that results from that manipulation.

If someone gathers data and wants to hide it, that's their privilege. They shouldn't, however, imagine that they are engaged in the enterprise of science, which is a social process of validation and refinement.

Bob also appears to be unaware that large areas of science (including parts of climatology) require openly sharing data, meta-data and code.

Here is a link to a warmist scientist on this subject:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/­-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/#comment-214341

Bob| 11.28.09 @ 2:48PM

John,

We can talk about paleoclimatology, wherein I agree with you as direct measurements have not been available. However, starting at the beginning of the 20th century we have had direct measurements -- and over the past several decades, we have had direct measurement of CO2 levels. These data are not obtained using a time series formula. You may disagree with the absolute levels (and for good reason), but you cannot disagree with the trend data as the methodology remained a constant.

And yes, I am aware of the open sharing of data in areas of science, but data is not shared when there are profits to be made. If we did that, we would have no pharmaceuticals...

Dixie, you obviously didn't read my post. I stated that the underlying data was solid, but I questioned the relationship between CO2 levels and global warming -- something where there is not strong proof. Perhaps you need to read better.

John Moore| 11.28.09 @ 4:20PM

Bob,
I agree that certain areas of science require at least temporary with-holding of data. To assert that my call for open science is a call for communism is wrong. The goal should be for it to be as open as possible, within certain constraints. Even pharmaceutical research needs to be open at some point. Until it is open and available, it is not truly science - it is the application of the methods of science towards engineering a product. It cannot really be called science until it has been opened up for refutation by outsiders.

As for the temperatures... we do not have direct measurement of global temperature until the 21st century. We have proxy measurements in terms of thermometric data that must be adjusted for numerous factors, and then must somehow be extrapolated across the globe to get global temperature. In that sense, the use of measurement sets is no different from the use of even more indirect proxies - both must be converted into the variable of interest: global temperature. Both the adjustments (for example, for moving a station) and the extrapolations need to be done in a public fashion with understandable data.

Dixie Pixie| 11.28.09 @ 5:00PM

To: Bob ( of the cacophonous funnel head )

Why, Yes, I did read your post. Three times your original post was read. You seemed even more confused than usual. Are you sure that is steam coming out the funnel. It could be the electronic blue smoke of burning TTL logic circuits. Exploding TTL chips make the same tooting sound.

Your confusion could be the result of assuming the underlining data was solid. It was not as it was falsified. The data was adjusted to confirm a created theory. Nothing about Global Warming Theory was real. It look good thus your confusion.

I knew Global Warming was a scam from the start. The confirmation for me was the manufactured hysteria of a 5 degree temperature rise over one hundred years. The daily temperature difference is somewhere between 25 and 20 degrees.

The kicker was the projected sea level rise of 1 to 2 inches per hundred years for a 2 day variance of 1 to 2 feet depending on location. Neither was humanly noticeable even for the worse case projections.

The Greenies projections were obvious hyperbolic nonsense and for money too.

Check the 5Volt power supply as your logic circuits seem to be running hot. Any voltage above 5.5 volts can cause TTL logic to vaporise depending on computational usage.

BOB| 11.28.09 @ 1:52PM

TOOOT! ALL BOW DOWN BEFORE "BOB THE MEGA-BRAIN!", "BOB THE ALMIGHTY OF GRA- MATTERNESS!", "BOB THE IVY LEAGUE NEED I SAY MORE!" DO NOT STARE AT THE FUNNEL ATOP MY HEAD THAT BLOWS SMOKE WHILE TOOTING! TOOOOOT! I AM ALL KNOWING AND YOU ARE JUST UNEDUCATED DOCTORS, PILOTS AND STATE UNIVERSITY MBAS! I PASS GAS IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION! TOOTY TOOT TOOT! (BUT I FILTER IT FIRST THROUGH THE HUMAN CATALYTIC CONVERTER I INVENTED IN MY SPARE TIME SO AS NOT TO ADD METHANE TO THE ATMOSPHERE AND INCREASE GLOBAL WARMING. AS SUCH, MY FARTS DON'T STINK! TOOT!)

AS FOR YOU, RSM, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION DATA LIKE THE CO2 DATA.! WE ARE POLLUTING THE PLANET WITH CO2 LIKE NEVER BEFORE! TOOT! THERE IS 380 PARTS PER MILLION OF CO2 IN THE AIR! AND IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 15 PARTS PER MILLION OF CO2! TOOOOT! WOW! JUST WATCH THIS SHOCKING VIDEO! TOOOOOOT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI

AND YOU CANNOT SEE HOW WE ARE DESTROYING OUR ONLY PLANET? PITIFUL. TOOT. THAT WAS A SAD TOOT FOR YOU, RSM!

AND YOU CANNOT SEE THAT THOSE POOR SCIENTISTS WHO HAD THERE EMAILS STOLEN WERE SIMPLY PROTECTING THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS EVEN THOUGH THE DATA HAS BEEN PAID FOR BY TAX PAYERS AND THAT THEY WERE WITHHOLDING THE DATA FROM OTHER SCIENTISTS WHO WANTED TO REVIEW IT! TOOOOOOOT! I "BOB THE SUPER SMART DATA MONGER" AM THE KEEPER OF DATA, YOU UPSTART PIPSQUEAK! HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR DATA TO PROVE WHAT EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS IS TRUE! TOOOT! I WILL TELL YOU WHEN IT IS PROPER TO ASK FOR DATA - OR CHARTS, OR PIE GRAPHS, EVEN! TOOOOOOT!

YOU SEE, RSM, WE DO NOT ESCHEW THE REAL DATA AND CAN TELL EVERYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST FROM OUT CHARTS! NOT ONLY THAT, WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE! TOOOOOT, TOOT TOOT!

AND IF YOUR STORY IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY IS THAT SIMPLY WONDERFUL MAN, DAVID BROOKS,COVERING IT? OR THAT CHISELED JAW SEXY SQUIRREL, KEITH OLBERMAN? TOOOOOOTY TOOTTLES! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME THAT WAY? I AM NOT GAY, I TELL YOU. I AM CONFIDENT IN MY MANHOOD AS I HAVE FOUGHT AT HAMBURGER HILL AND HAVE BEEN CEO OF 183.25 OF THE MOST MANLY FORTUNE 183.25 COMPANIES! I LIKE MANLY MEN! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME THAT WAY? I'M NOT GAY, BUT IF I WAS IT WOULDN'T BOTHER ME! TOOT! I MUST GO NOW. I HAVE A PEDICURE. WHAT? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? I SIMPLE WANT SENSUOUS FEET! TOOOT! I HAPPEN TO LIKE MY FEET, SO WHAT?! I DO NOT HAVE A FOOT FETISH! I DON'T KNOW WHAT KEITH OLBERMAN'S FEET LOOK LIKE! THEY ARE PROBABLY SEXY, THOUGH. WHAT?! OH! AND I SUPPOSE THAT YOU, TOUGH GUY ROBERT MCCAIN, HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT OLBERMANS FEET! SURE, TELL ME ANOTHER ONE! I AM NOT A GUY-FOOT GUY, AS YOU PUT IT! OK, THIS IS GETTING SILLY-WILLY NOW! SO? I SAID SILLY-WILLY! IT'S A COLLOQUIALISM! I HAVE TO GO! TOOOOOOT! BEGONE WITH YOU, RSM! AND ALL YOU UNEDUCATED DOCTORS AND PILOTS! YOU ARE ALL TOO IGNORANT FOR SOPHISTICATED DISCUSSION! TOOOOOT!

GM Roper| 11.28.09 @ 4:24PM

Bob, I fully agree with you. In fact, being such a strong capitalist I've developed a Fusion Reactor that operates on baked beans, but only the Bush's Baked Beans. I've attained internal temps that exceed 4000 degrees kelvin in a pulse of 1.11001 microseconds and repeated at the rate of 10,000,392 pulses per second. My data confirms this but I can't release the data or a configuration of my device (which operates only in the confines of your typical Amana Refrigerator freezer) for fear that some running dog lacky will steal it.

So, since we are both capitalists will you invest 2.6 million bucks or find 2.6 million folk who invest a buck and let me make some money? Just askin' you understand.

(said totally in jest, I understand your point but John really is referring to data not as a part of a pharmaceutical or other proprietary nature. He is asking that data be made public when this particular type of knowledge has the potential to affect billions of people and cause untold harm.)

Sincerely, GM Roper

Lazy Jack| 11.28.09 @ 10:46AM

The great tragedy in this is that there is substance to natural climate change, and in many circumstances human activity has affected our environment very negatively (Think Love Canal, Chernobyl, Deforestation in the rain forests). Fabrication and manipulation of data only poisons the well and possibly points us in the wrong direction for solutions. It also damages the credibility of all science itself, to the great detriment of every man, woman and child on earth. Apparently us bubbas are not the only ones who can be venal, selfish, arrogant, dopey, etc.

Lazy Jack

www.thanksforthelaughs.wordpress.com

Yosemeti Sam| 11.28.09 @ 12:53PM

Back during the first Gulf War, Sadist Saddam Hussein - mmm,mmm,mmm - torched reportedly
some 600 Kuwaiti oil wells.

Oh, the carbonaceous soot of it all.

The late Carl Sagan predicted that should
Sadist Saddam Hussein - mmm,mmm,mmm -
actually deliver on his threat of torching oil
wells; that some form of 'nuclear winter'
would occur; blocking sunlight. Winter - i.e.
cold?

Never happened!

So which is it - excess carbonaceous elements will cause 'nuclear winters' or 'greenhouse global warming' ?

Richard Baker| 11.28.09 @ 12:58PM

Sam:
We're supposed to be intimidated by the letters, Ph.D., don't you know? In these frauds' case it does mean Piled Higher and Deeper.

John Moore| 11.28.09 @ 1:02PM

Commenter Bob writes:
"RSM -- I guess you didn't understand that this guy is recommending a form of communism. He is recommending the destruction of intellectual property rights in favor of "information/methodology" sharing. Microsoft dominates the operating system market because their work is proprietary and they can charge for it. If they give out their trade secrets, then what good is capitalism? "

John Moore| 11.28.09 @ 1:04PM

The browser ate my homework... more seriously, my response to Bob was lost. It will appear in a reply directly to his post.

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 1:52PM

Wrong.

There is no "enterprise" to prove human contributions to global warning.

The whole model underlying your critical approach is completely inaccurate.

Researchers working in different branches, trained in different universities, working in different countries all over the globe, being funded by different entities with different interests, are in general agreement that human activity is contributing to global warming.

There are now studies of studies finding no peer reviewed publications in twenty years that have found manmade emissions were having no effect on climate.

Now, scientists differ a great deal on a good many topics. They differ in how they interpret data; they differ in predictions about the costs to human societies of global warming; they even differ on how much could possibly be predicted even given vaster amounts of data. In addition, they differ over how global warming deniers should be challenged and fought.

Global warming deniers have a much easier task than scientists studying climate.

All a denier has to do is make his position a legitimate "counter point" to scientific findings in the media and he's won the battle. A denier does not have to convince anyone of anything; he does not have to satisfy his peers that his opinions have integrity. He does not need to be right about anything to succeed. All he needs to do is persuade the media -- already predisposed to an "on the one hand ... and on the other" template -- to present "doubts" about scientific findings as similar in nature to the doubt that is already built into the scientific method.

BOB| 11.28.09 @ 2:03PM

TOOOT! SHUT UP, LR! TOOOT! EVEN I, "BOB THE MOST EDUCATED" KNOW THAT THE GUYS AT HE CRU HAVE BEEN KEEPING DATA PROVING THEM WRONG OUT OF SO CALLED "PEER-REVIEWED" JOURNALS, YOU FOOL! IT'S IN THEIR EMAILS, YOU PONTIFICATING, PUGNACIOUS PIPSQUEAK!

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DATA! I AM "BOB THE DATA MONGER" AND KNOW ALL DATA! SO IXNAY ON THE ATADA, INHEADPA! ! GET IT! TOOOT!

Liberal Reader| 11.28.09 @ 3:08PM

BOB --

Do you ever ask yourself, "Am I a fucking moron?"

Bob| 11.28.09 @ 3:40PM

Liberal, this is not me. He's trying to make fun of actually looking at facts and data. I'm not sure if he's on the staff of Palin or Bachmann. He once left a link on his name that led to a guy named Trey Parker -- one of the people involved in South Park. It sounds like he is the same guy. And you are correct in your question.

BOB| 11.28.09 @ 4:17PM

TOOOOOT! I AM "BOB THE MEGA BRAIN" YOU NATTERING NINCOMPOOP! YOU POPPING PUSTULE! I AND I ALONE OWN DATA AND FACTS AND KNOW HOW TO USE THEM! YOU ARE A PIPSQUEAK OF PUFFERY! I LAUGH AT YOUR IGNORANT ILLUSIONS OF IMPORTANCE AND KNOWLEDGE. YOU ARE SIMPLY A LIBERAL AHOLE WITH SPIN DOCTORY COMPLIMENTS OF THE SCUM THAT SWIM IN THE HUFFPO POND! YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE UNEDUCATED DOCTORS, PILOTS AND STATE UNIVERSITY MBAS THAT SWIM HERE, YOU LITTLE, LITTLE MAN! TOOOOT!

YOU HAVE ASKED - A QUESTION THAT ONLY A PIPSQUEAK WITH A SMALL PENIS WOULD ASK, SO I SHALL ANSWER IT SINCE I TAKE PITY ON YOUR DEFICIENCY! TOOOT!

YES, YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. SORRY TO PILE ON THAT WAY. I MEAN, NOW YOU WILL BE KNOWN FOR ALL TIME AS "LIBERAL READER - THE FUCKING MORON WITH A SMALL PENIS".!TOOOOT! HAHAHAHAH! WELL, ENJOY YOUR NEW PEN NAME! TOOOOT!

Dixie Pixie| 11.29.09 @ 4:40PM

To: Liberal Reader

I am not convinced the single Bob theory is wrong.
Only the TAS Online moderator knows for sure.

As for the sexual and mental capabilities of one or more Bob's, consider it one of life's little mystery's.

All I know is the Funnel Headed Bob is far funnier and nearly as accurate. I just wish he had learned the common usage of upper case lettering ;-)

Eric Cartman| 11.29.09 @ 5:10PM

Dear Dixie,

I think BOB uses uppercase letters because he is supposed to be speaking like The Wizard of Oz, all the bluster and echo like the Wiz and Obama when they speak. Sort of like a god speaking from above. I see the smoke and toot as the other Bob blowing his own horn and using a smokescreen to sneak in his liberal bias. I'm just guessing, however.

John Moore| 11.28.09 @ 4:27PM

Liberal writes: "Researchers working in different branches, trained in different universities, working in different countries all over the globe, being funded by different entities with different interests, are in general agreement that human activity is contributing to global warming."
This is correct. Few scientific skeptics would disagree that human activity *should* contribute to warming, as simple CO2 radiative physics gives a 1.2C rise per doubling of concentration. There are good reasons to doubt that a clear signal of AGW hsa been found in the data, however, regardless of the number of scientists who think otherwise. Keep in mind that the vast majority of scientists in this field are not working on that central question; they are doing research on the consequences of the hypothesis - hence the biologists studying the effect of "climate change" on lepidoptera migration, or whatever. Even in the climate field, most work is not on finding the signal, but rather on the important peripheral activities of studying proxies, validating model parameterization, etc. When one looks at the number actually claiming to find the signal, it is small.

And..."There are now studies of studies finding no peer reviewed publications in twenty years that have found manmade emissions were having no effect on climate. "
Yes, which pretty well proves the point of the skeptics that contrary research is being suppressed. It is rare for a field of science to have NO contrary papers - especially an area so full of uncertainties, and so controversial.

GM Roper| 11.28.09 @ 4:29PM

I hate to see it when a good post fosters good arguments and then the children take over!

Eric Cartman| 11.28.09 @ 5:01PM

The children took over this argument a long time ago . I would say about the time they started hiding their data, fudging their numbers and threatening other scientists with harm. Can you think of anything else to describe it as besides childish?

MikeL| 11.29.09 @ 12:08PM

How about "fraud".

Eric Cartman| 11.29.09 @ 12:20PM

Agreed! But something can be both fraudulent and childish. But fraud is good! Anyone else?

Dixie Pixie| 11.29.09 @ 5:03PM

Consider International Conspiracy to Defraud the Public without a controlling legal authority.

Even the Noble Prize Committee was in on it.

Richard Baker| 11.28.09 @ 10:12PM

Eric Cartman & GM Roper:
It appears that the anal expressive crowd has arrived.

Nick| 11.29.09 @ 12:01PM

For those who don't know, like Mr. Moore and GM Roper, just ignore 3/5 Bob and Marxist Reader (LR).

Until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought blacks had 3/5 of vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He also doesn't know when human life begins because he doesn't know when "ensoulment" happens.

LR claims he was in the Army and that his "Military Occupational STRATEGY" (Ha-ha!), i.e. MOS, was 11 Hotel "t.o.w." gunner. He won't tell us where he was stationed.

They are not worth your time or energy.
This has been a public service announcement brought to you by NNS, the Nick News Service.

By the way, CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Even if the claims are true that it has increased from 150 ppm (that's Parts Per Million, for those in Rio Linda) to 300 ppm, that is still only .o3 of one percent. In a word, minuscule. Which means CO2 released by man is less than minuscule.

Try learning how much "latent heat" can be absorbed by water vapor (humidity) and see if you still think CO2 is a problem. Also, try looking up the terms "sensible heat" and "enthalpy" to learn how the real world works.

John Moore| 11.29.09 @ 1:00PM

Nick, thanks for the info,

Re: CO2 is a trace gas. That is true, but what counts (simplified) is its ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy while passing shorter wavelength radiation. That effect is real, and definitely results in warming of the atmosphere.

The problem with the warmists is that they claim that this trend is dramatically amplified (positive feedback) thus forecasting catastrophic warming. The basis for this amplification is suspect - it is neither confirmed nor falsified.

Nick| 11.29.09 @ 1:25PM

Mr. Moore,

Yes, I agree. I'm not "denying" (ha-ha) CO2 has a real effect. But, I have read that it pales when compared to H2O in the atmosphere.

I'm not a scientist, but my experience in heating and air conditioning give me an understanding of how gases and water vapor act.

I also should've mentioned the website WattsUpWithThat, for those who would like to see how "sound" the "data" actually is.

As the late Michael Crichton said, "What is the ideal global temperature?"

I will add your blog to my reading list, it looks interesting.

Liberal Reader| 11.29.09 @ 4:24PM

The amplification effect you refer to has more scientific basis than your post suggests. It does indeed look like a "total positive feedback system," which would be awful for the climate.

True, the model hasn't been proven accurate; true, it would be very difficult to falsify. But that doesn't mean the hypothesis should be ignored or shrugged off.

About the best we hear from the deniers has been summed up nicely by Dr. Rushmore Limbaugh, a climatologist from Florida:

GOD would not let global warming happen. He gave us oil to burn, and it just doesn't make sense he would do so if it were bad.

You'll say it's impossible that someone could be so stupid, but ultimately this is what passes for scientific reasoning among deniers. Your skepticism is admirable, but I'd keep an open mind to what pretty much the planetary scientific community is asserting.

BOB| 11.29.09 @ 5:34PM

TOOT! I WORK AND WORK TRYING TO HELP AND EDUCATE THESE PUFFERY PEDDLING PIPSQUEAKS, AND WHAT DO I GET? NOT EVEN A SMIDGEN OF RESPECT! TOOOOT!

I HAVE DUBBED THEE "LIBERAL READER - THE FUCKING MORON WITH A SMALL PENIS" BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO ANSWER YOUR MORONIC QUESTION! TOOOT! PLEASE USE YOU NEW NOM DE PLUME WHEN ADDRESSING THE DISCUSSION BOARD!

I STRIVE TO BE KIND TO THESE MORONS AND WHAT DO I GET? NOT EVEN A THANK YOU OR A CARD OR A MEMO! TOOT TOOT! THOSE ARE SAD TOOTS FOR YOU, LR-TFMWASP! I AM ASHAMED!

victor| 11.30.09 @ 1:19AM

Simple Reader once again lies about Rush:

About the best we hear from the deniers has been summed up nicely by Dr. Rushmore Limbaugh, a climatologist from Florida:

"GOD would not let global warming happen. He gave us oil to burn, and it just doesn't make sense he would do so if it were bad. "

Citation please! Got a date or a transcript?

John Moore| 11.29.09 @ 6:32PM

LR states:
"It does indeed look like a "total positive feedback system," which would be awful for the climate.

True, the model hasn't been proven accurate; true, it would be very difficult to falsify. But that doesn't mean the hypothesis should be ignored or shrugged off. "

For emphasis: TRUE; IT WOULD E VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY.

Let me translate that into science speak: true, it would be very difficult to say the result is scientific.

Non-falsifiable hypotheses do not constitute science, they constitute speculation.

"It does indeed look like a "total positive feedback system," which would be awful for the climate."
has problems. For one thing, spending trillions on impoverishing the earth should not be done on a "it does indeed look..." sort of assertions. Second, if the feedback is positive, why has the earth not warmed during the last decade, while the CO2 concentration has not gone up? The very models that reputedly show positive feedback do not account for this.

Finally, it is not "pretty much the planetary scientific community" asserting AGW. It is a small group who are actually publishing the papers asserting this. There are a whole lot of planetary scientists, non-specialists, who may agree with them, but science doesn't work by consensus, which brings us back to your original statement:

Science works by skeptics challenging falsifiable hypothesis.

Oh, btw, the use of "denialists" by anyone in this debate should flag them right of the bat as polemicists. This insulting and degrading term doesn't belong in this debate.

Liberal Reader| 11.29.09 @ 7:57PM

John --

You're right, of course. The reason why Creationism is NOT science is that it posits claims that are impossible to falsify.

However, what I would say about these models is that as of now, with the data we have, they seem not to be testable. And you're right: that means we cannot form a scientifically viable THEORY from them.

However, scientific speculation is an important part of science.

I would challenge your claim that addressing CO2 emissions (and others) necessarily will impoverish the global economy.

Generating what will be the energy technologies of the future no matter what is an economic imperative. China is investing billions in solar technology for a reason -- and you can be sure it has nothing to do with a sentimental attachment to polar bears.

Green energy means DECENTRALIZED energy. That means corporate boardrooms are scared to death of it.

Well, their time has come. If we could, I'd cheer on the use of guillotines; but lacking that option, I'd say we should keep going green.

John Moore| 11.29.09 @ 8:20PM

Liberal Reader writes :I would challenge your claim that addressing CO2 emissions (and others) necessarily will impoverish the global economy."

Any time you have central control forcing large changes in important parts of the economy, huge waste results. Look at how well it worked for the USSR. But to be specific...

Energy is the food of progress and prosperity. Raise the cost of energy, and reduce prosperity; reduce prosperity and we suffer; the third and fourth world people get sick and die.

The burden of proof is on those who would force (literally, but the threat of armed force) major changes in our energy systems. As an engineer, I know well the uncertainties involved in large projects, and am well familiar with energy. It is highly unlikely that the net effect of coercing "alternative" energy will be positive in any economic sense.

Fortunately, we do have a recent example of the consequences of government forcing a "carbon friendly" energy policy: corn ethanol. I hope you don't propose to defend that fiasco. I should also hope you would see how emblematic it is of political efforts to do engineering.

"Generating what will be the energy technologies of the future no matter what is an economic imperative."

Yes... do you think you know what those technologies will be? Are you (or the government) the ones to choose whether it is grid-unfriendly solar and wind, or environmentalist unfriendly nuclear, or some other scheme?

"China is investing billions in solar technology for a reason -- and you can be sure it has nothing to do with a sentimental attachment to polar bears."
That's right. They are investing it in order to sell solar to us. You didn't mention that they open a coal fired power plant every week, or that the carbon emissions just from their inadvertent underground coal fires approach that of the entire US transportation fleet. You also didn't mention that China is investing heavily in nuclear - both to sell us, and to reduce their hydrocarbon dependence. We have lots of hydrocarbons (locked up by environmentalists), they don't. Besides, I've never considered the Chinese central command economy (backed by a secret police and their gulag) to be an example to follow.

Green energy means DECENTRALIZED energy. That means corporate boardrooms are scared to death of it.

Decentralized means less efficient (even less energy efficient). That means reasonable engineers oppose it where it is not justified. I have analyzed the economics of solar power for my own house, and it is so radically far from being cost effective (without massive subsidies) that the whole idea is ridiculous. Not only that, but the cost reductions happening in that industry show no signs of bringing it close to the cost of grid power - ever. And - I live in the best place in the US for solar power - Phoenix,AZ.

One problem with solar/wind is that it is decentralized - specifically, that the energy density (per area) is very low. While it is true that some "environmentalists" have proposed paving over much of the desert I live in for solar plants, the idea doesn't wash.

As far as corporate boardrooms, they fear what threatens their business and cheer what produces opportunity. So, which corporate board rooms are you referring to, and more importantly, what is the relevance?

Cororations are whores - they will follow the money; contrary to liberal beliefs, they are also not ideological, which is why they gave so much money to Democrats last year. Corporations are in it for the money (which is handy if you happen to have any savings, since those profits are probably what your savings are based on).

So, which corporate board rooms are you referring to? The ones who make solar systems? The ones who make nukes? The ones who run shopping centers? The ones who build computers?

Liberal Reader| 11.29.09 @ 8:32PM

John --

You are reasonable and very well informed, obviously. But I think you have a knee-jerk reaction against "green" energy.

I will not defend the ethanol boon-doggle.

I was thinking Exxon/Mobile, which is funding a campaign against AGW science not unlike the campaign funded by tobacco companies in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

The RHETORIC being ginned up in think tanks and in right wing press is so similar to those efforts undertaken to sow doubt in peoples' minds about the health risks of smoking that I do not flinch from calling them "deniers." I'm afraid THEY'LL have to prove that they are capable of being convinced, given enough information. As of know, they ALL sound like the aforementioned Dr. Limbaugh, whose credentials in science we all know.

Remember: we act based upon scientific speculation very often.

Scientists have been warning for decades about the consequences of over-fishing to the eco-systems of the oceans. Well, governments have, a bit too late, begun to respond. We don't KNOW these eco-systems will collapse if we keep on as we are, but the danger they might makes acting worthwhile, despite the terrible economic costs.

Global warming science is FAR more complicated. Indeed, you'd have to be an idiot to look at the data on the health of the world's oceans and not be shocked. But with AGW, the systems are so complex, the amount of data so huge, the science so difficult, that certainty is going to be difficult to come by. The question becomes when to act, if it starts seeming likely we may be talking about decreasing the world's food production capacity by x, displacing y number of civilians per year, introducing z number of invasive species per year, and so on.

Liberal Reader| 11.29.09 @ 8:38PM

John --

My point, ultimately, is that there is, of course, room for legitimate skepticism. But most published "skepticism" of AGW science doesn't sound like skepticism to me: it sounds too calculated. As of now, in other words, I need to be convinced of a "skeptics" good faith. With think tanks being funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars to promote what IS junk science -- with the sole purpose of sowing doubt in people's minds that human activity COULD possibly affect climate -- I just don't know which skeptics to trust. Skeptics that seem to know something about science -- like you -- however, gain my trust quickly.

Skeptics like McCain, above, who simply gestures at the scientific community and calls it a "cult," or whatever, are not trustworthy to me.

John Moore| 11.29.09 @ 11:20PM

LR - I see the opposite.
The serious skeptics of the science (several of whom I know) are not being driven by any corporate profite motive.

It is true that the politicization of science means that for skeptics to do funded research (most are self funded), they need to find industry funding. However, to claim that their motives are driven by their funding would be unscientific in itself. And, the most prominent skeptics are not industry funded.

Be careful not to confuse the right's Al Gore's with the scientific skeptics - it is not any more correct than to consider Al Gore a scientific proponent of AGW - he is not - he is a polemicist and a quas-religious leader. You can find similar folks on the right, but don't let that obscure the real skeptics.

Check out, for example, http://climate-skeptic.com/ for a self-funded, careful skeptic.

Another way to distinguish a skeptic from a polemecist is that no serious skeptic doubts the one-dimensional physics that shows how CO2 doubling increases temperature about 1.2 degrees K.

Also, keep in mind that there are plenty of folks in the anti-AGW camp who are not skeptics, but rather opponents of the AGW-driven agenda. These people are not properly called either denialists or skeptics - they are opponents of policy. I suspect you read a lot more from them than from the real skeptics.

victor| 11.30.09 @ 1:35AM

Simple Reader once again turns logic on its head:
"Green energy means DECENTRALIZED energy. That means corporate boardrooms are scared to death of it."

If there was money to be made from so-called "green" energy, then Private Enterprise would be in the forefront making gazillions of dollars, wouldn't they?
And they wouldn't need to be subsidized by the federal government, now would they?
We have 300 YEARS worth of oil in the US of A
and you gerbil worshippers want nothing to do with it.
We could drill so much oil that the market would be flooded and the A-rabs would be kicking their camels, but oh, no, you would much rather we drive "smarty-farty" cars, lawn mowers with seats,
http://www.barstoolperformance.com/
then drive whatever you bloody well choose to drive.
We could put millions of people back to work if the Current Occupant knew the difference between motor oil and olive oil.
But he don't.

John Moore| 11.29.09 @ 6:32PM

error above - I mean to say "while the CO2 concentration HAS gone up" - obviously

Pete| 11.29.09 @ 6:36PM

Bob states that there is a huge rise in man-caused CO2 levels and that if in the next several decades temperatures rise, ergo the warmist scientists were probably correct. How is that conclusion even remotely scientific? Ante hoc, ergo propter hoc? Puhlease. Also, Liberal Reader states, "Global warming deniers have a much easier task that scientists studying climate." Actually many global warming deniers ARE scientists studying climate. Damn good ones, at that. Their skepticism is the very essence of the scientific method.

Margie| 11.29.09 @ 11:15PM

LibReader always insults and lies about those who point out the truth.
Rush Limbaugh tells the truth about "Global Warming."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho.....guest.html

John Moore| 11.30.09 @ 7:56PM

I have great respect for Rush's achievements and for his brilliant political analyst skills. However, Rush Limbaugh's knowledge of science could dance on the head of a pin. He is not a credible skeptic.