Global Warming: What Do You Think?

Without even diving into both sides of the controversial and technical side of the debate there are still a few major problems with the global warming proponents position. 1st; the UN is driving this movement and they have a long and documented history of financial motivation and corruption. So when someone has lied to me in the past and has significant financial incentive to lie to me in the present - why would I blindly trust their message? 2nd; Virtually all of the scientific studies are paid for by grant money that is only available to scientists who produce studies supporting current global warming theories - and they continue to resort to catastrophic predictions to grab headlines and scare people into believing them. Again, why should we believe 'liars' who are financially motivated to make us believe them and secure their next paycheck? 3rd; NASA has also emerged as a significant proponent and they are also involved in huge funding battles to continue their operations. The funding keeps coming as long as they continue to produce dire predictions and scare people enough to pressure the politicians to act. They too are biased. 4th; AGW proponents commonly claim that skeptics are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. While initially they resisted, the fossil fuel industry is now a proponent of the AGW theory because they too have realized that they can make huge amounts of money with the carbon cap and trade schemes currently being proposed. In Europe they let the power industry charge the consumer for carbon credits that the government had given away for free! But they let them recognize how much they 'could' have sold them for and pass that cost on the the consumer. The money is flowing too freely into the proponents wallets for me to believe anything they say. 5th; Al Gore, hahahahahahahahaha...where to even being. Come on people, when the man lost the election he was worth a couple million and now he is worth hundreds of millions - you do the math. 6th; This constant obsession with consensus, ending all debate and viciously attacking skeptics is so anti-science that you have to smell a rat. That rat is money (Enron was the original corporate proponent of global warming - remember them?). 7th; The environmentalist community has always struggled for funding and recognition - this is their holy grail of opportunities. They have never in history had so much attention and money flowing into their bank accounts. Daily headlines, leading stories, swelling membership - this is their chance to go mainstream and seize huge amounts of money and power. Why would we believe all of these people when their motives are so clearly financial???

The amount of actual warming we face will differ depending on region. Some regions will actually cool because of changes in ocean currents, so Global Warming is actually a misnomer.

The Russian tundra will thaw, leading to easier oil extraction in the region. We must approach global warming as an issue of national security.

antimarx shows the typical attitude of those who claim to be skeptics. Every claim in his post is wrong and it all reads like a Rush Limbaugh rant on the subject. Not one bit of it has to do with the science and even what he says is wrong. Funding has nothing to do with producing dire predictions. This claim is made over and over again and there is never any proof. Not one grain. What is the role of Al Gore in all this? A spokesman, nothing more. He is not worth hundreds of millions of dollars because of his activities. The constant attacks on someone who is no more perfect than any other human being but certainly not part of some grand conspiracy as Senator Inhofe would have it are tiresome and purely political.

The U.N. is not behind anything. How many world wide organizations are there? Very few. So yes, they set up the IPCC. But that is hardly the only organization that agrees that AGW is a problem. The AGU agrees. I am not even aware of any organization of scientists that disagrees with the idea. Heck, even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has had to tone down its criticism of global warming because of the opinions of its own members.

Quite a while ago I came to the conclusion that debating global warming and whether or not it is primarily anthropogenic is largely missing the point. Whether or not global warming is a dire threat, the solutions to it is primarily an energy problem. Similarly, reducing "traditional" pollution is an energy problem. Similarly, concern about global oil supply is an energy problem. Similarly, reducing our dependence on foreign oil is an energy problem. Similarly, reducing our foreign trade deficit has a strong energy component. Similarly, enhancing our national security has a strong energy component. And although all of those things have different causes (at least to some degree) they all point to the same set of solutions. Let me take them one by one...

The biggest threat of global warming is not an incremental increase in temperature, but the possibility that an increase will eventually reach a tipping point where conditions reach a point where they are difficult or impossible to contain. For example, permafrost in the tundra contains vast amounts of methane trapped in the ice. If the ice starts to melt, methane will be released. Methane is 20-30 times more potent a GHG than CO2. The more that's released the more it will warm, and the release accelerates. There is also vast amounts of methane similarly trapped in ice on the ocean floors. Warm the oceans and that becomes a potential problem, too. So if global warming has any anthropogenic component at all, that's something you really want to avoid. And the only way to do it is to burn less fossil fuels.

On the environmental front, the recent catastophe in Tennessee is an example of the potential for destruction posed by burning fossil fuels. Living around coal strip mines is unhealthy. Living around refineries is unhealthy. Living in most Chinese cities is unhealthy. Burning less fossil fuels is healthy (assuming you do it right).

Global oil supply is a matter of intense debate these days. The growing concensus is that if global economies continue to grow, demand will outstrip the ability to maintain supply, even if supply was not manipulated by national/political considerations. And given that over 80% of the world's oil supplies are controlled by nationalized oil companies, political manipulation is the rule, not the exception. That puts the economies of the "have not" nations at the mercy of the "haves". And already (as indicated by none other than Condoleeza Rice), our foreign policy is distorted by those sorts of concerns. For example, the supporters of terrorist groups like Hammas, Hezbolla, even al Qaeda, are getting rich on the West's money. We are, in effect, funding those that we're fighting against. That makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Add to that the fact that the cheapest oil is predominantly in and around the Persian Gulf and Arabian peninsula, that gives the countries in that area tremendous leverage. And that causes political instability. One could try to argue that the way around it is to enhance domestic supply. And I am of the opinion that that should be done more than it currently is. But when you get into "unconventional" sources of oil, environmental pollution concerns loom large. Tar sand mining in Alberta is turning that province into a waste land. No one has figured out how to mine oil shale effectively yet, but each of the various alternatives being tried have large potential impacts on the environment. They are also very energy - intensive, so the EROI (energy return on investment) is low. Also, those technologies are the very definition of "nascent technologies", something conservatives seem to be fociferously against. But I guess the charge is really only leveled against those technologies they don't like.

Anyway, without going into detail, it seems to me that the solution to all of those concerns is the aggressive pursuit of demand destruction through better energy efficiency and alternative fuels, especially renewable ones.

Patrick,

Do you agree that scientists don't know what they're doing? This is the attitude implicit in the criticisms you consider to be valid. Which natural cycles are the critics aware of that neither climatologists or astronomers are aware of? If the only meaningful temperature records are those of the last 150 years do you mean that you consider everything that is considered viable proxy data in the scientific world to be meaningless? To consider those criticisms valid you have to answer that question. I have never seen a good answer. Cycles are mentioned, the scientists involved point out that those cycles are not at the point to produce the effects being observed and the the critics completely ignore the scientists.

To question accuracy is acceptable but somehow the critics never mention that the scientists do not in fact even attempt to give an exact prediction, as in "The temperature is going to go up five degrees.". Actual papers on the subject say that it can go up within a certain range and most actually lay out the assumptions implicit in different sets of numbers. The predictions also tend to be conservative and the extremes are presented as just that, the highest possible result.

It's a pity science can so easily be politicized. One has to make an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to AGW information. I believe it's fair to say that most folks who have a science background, who aren't idealogues, and who have followed the ins and outs of the global warming research and debate over the years realize AGW is a real and critically important phenomenon. How important? Important enough not to sideline results of research and study via the dumbing down processes that get our society into so much trouble in the first place.

If we choose to ignore facts because A.) we are uncomfortable with them, or B.) because we don't like the messengers, that isn't going to make those facts go away. Of course research needs to continue, and of course valid questioning of AGW is part of that process, but this shouldn't include giving AGW detractors artificially disproportionate weight in some misguided attempt to acheive a politically correct balance.

Here are a few links that can help clarify some of the confusion by addressing many of the questions people still have about global warming.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462 (Climate Change: a Guide for the Perplexed)

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title... (an index for debunking of various popular media occurrences of climate-related nonsense)

http://www.realclimate.org/ (tons of reliable information, start with the navigation tabs at top of page)

I see ricorun beat me to it with his mention of the methane release issue with the thawing of Siberian tundra. The rest of his post is also very much on the mark.

In a NOVA piece on global climate change, “What’s up with the weather?”, James Trefil observed:

"If you sat down and said, "I'm going to design a public issue that is the absolute worst nightmare of every scientist, of every communicator in the world," you couldn't do better than the greenhouse effect. You're dealing with something that's very complicated. You're dealing with something where there's legitimate uncertainty in the science. It's not that people are trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. There's legitimate uncertainty. You're dealing with something that has enormous consequences for people. And you're dealing with something whose effects will happen 30 years down the road, you know, when they happen. And then you say- you give people this and say, "Okay, do something about it.""

Mr. Edaburn illustrates this beautifully in his opinion piece by advancing a common and deeply flawed critique of the science that has unequivocally shown increasing average global temperatures during the industrial age. He says:

"For example it is reasonable to question how much the temperatures have increased. It is only in this century that weather-gathering has become a true science and thus to compare temperatures from today to ones from 1850 is of debatable value."

This position could, at best, only honestly be advanced by someone who has very limited understanding of the methods and process of the climate science underlying determinations of global average temperatures. The broad range of proxy methods by which global average temperatures can be determined prior to the use of modern climatological instrumentation and methods are effective and well established and provide data that it is NOT reasonable to question within their appropriate and recognized uncertainties.

To give you an idea of the utter vacuity of Mr. Edaburn’s opinion on this point let’s consider measuring temperatures across vast gulfs of space rather than time. The surface temperature of the sun plays an important role in climate. So, Mr Edaburn might opine, we can’t really know that the surface of the sun, 90 million miles away, is all that hot, because no sophisticated scientific instrument has ever been sent there to measure its temperature (which, by the way, is absolutely true). The flaw in this argument is that, just like in climate science, we use PROXY methods to measure the temperature. (Google Wien’s Law if you want a good place to start on the sun temperature problem. It would take a good two to three years studying university level physics and math to develop a genuine first-principles understanding of what Wien’s Law is and how it can be used to advance an appropriate argument about the temperature of the surface of the sun.)

An important aspect of the public issue to which James Trefil referred is scientific literacy. Commentators, armchair scientists, partisans and others are actively misunderstanding and misrepresenting deeply complicated scientific issues and using ersatz scientific arguments in their pontifications on the merits of the science of global climate change. Caveat emptor.

""If you sat down and said, "I'm going to design a public issue that is the absolute worst nightmare of every scientist, of every communicator in the world," you couldn't do better than the greenhouse effect."

Haha so true. Actually, as I'm sitting here in Cleveland where we've had the most snow and cold weather since I've lived her (7 years) I am reminded of what I thought five years ago reading about the warming of the Arctic: "oh crap that'll push the arctic jet stream down and make where I am a lot colder." Sure enough, the last few years have been abnormally cold and seen a lot more precipitation in some places in the US (especially Utah) while I keep trying to go up to Canada to ski in January and the resorts are too warm and hardly have any snow. I'm not sure what they are doing this year though.

Ricorun highlighted the most important part: even if 80% of current warming is natural and 20% due to human activities, that 20% is gigantic once you account for positive feedback loops that could be triggered.

Mikkel, we have the same deal going here in mid Michigan. It's been a heck of a winter here so far, similar to the ones I remember as a kid (except for the ice skating, which I no longer do). I just came in from a couple hours of moving snow out of my and my neighbors driveways, and it's still coming down. If this continues, I think it will be good for Great Lakes water levels which have been lower than they "should" be.

Jim - I find it hard to believe you're serious. Surely you know that scientific organisations put pressure on their research scientists involved in global warming to play down parts of their reports. It's easily done - I've been in the situation. If their funding depends on a certain result, they'll word it such that more research is needed. You must be aware that the politicians running the IPCC changed their summary after the scientists had agreed to it - that's why so many of their scientists are now openly opposing the summary.

Few people doubt that temperature has increased about 0.7 degC in the past 160 years - and so it should (although placing air conditioner outlets next to the sensors worries me). The problem is that it's hard to find any evidence that this tiny change has a significant anthropogenic contribution.

First off thanks for the comments, it's nice to see a debate even if some consider me less than worthy <G>.

As I thought I made clear in the original post I do think GW is for real and that we do need to take steps to try and curtail the effects. I simply think that like any scientific theory that it neccessary to examine and consider all aspects (IE to what degree warming is human caused and to what degree it is nature). Similarly, we need to look into a global solution, not one that has part of the planet curtail gas output while another remains unchanged (IE India/China vs Europe/US).

We also need to balance out changes vs impact on our society. As I said, if we were to dismantle all technology and return to an agrarian society we could cut greenhouse gases by 90% but we'd also be living in the 16th century.

I guess for some questioning any aspect of the theory is not allowed.

Yes, rhjames, I am very serious. Prove your claim about the researchers. Given that the only proof about influencing researchers has come from the opposite direction you claim I have a problem with your take on the subject. It sounds like just more of the same Rush Limbaugh crowd distortions.

Hey Jim, do you mention Rush Limbaugh in every post? This is the typical attack by liars and fanatics that I wrote about in my original post. Everything I wrote has documented proof behind it, particularly how IPCC and Al Gore have both publicly stated that sometimes you must issue dire predictions and balance it with 'science' in order to get the intended result. You are a fanatic Jim and also have no credibility since you lied about my post.

Read this brilliant piece about the financial corruption of science itself; http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.376... , I'm sure it's a little too advanced for Jim but hopefully others can read it and understand the true origin of this scam. Then read about the original lies by the UN/IPCC gang and Al Gore; http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm , is that enough of a start on proof for you Jim? Yeah, I know, no amount of fact will every shake your belief in Global Warming. Enjoy your kool-aid, it'll help keep you cool.

And last but not least, read this report about the sad and pathetic corruption of NASA; http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summa...

“Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation.”

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..."

CO2 lags temperature change by hundreds of years. That ONE fact alone disproves the AGW theory and it is proven data - even though the scientist/liars tried to explain it with some ridiculous story that it initially lags but then “could” drive climate change. Cult members are rapidly losing credibility because you have to keep manipulating the data to try and fit your 'science' because it advances your agenda and funding. This is the 1st point of hundreds that disprove AGW theories...
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Caillon...

Jim,

Besides me personally knowing one of the research scientists who has experienced this pressure, have a look at http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=1542.

Also the 650 scientists, many of whom were involved in IPCC last December - you surely are aware of all this. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi...

The problem, Patrick, is that while you did make it clear that you think GW is real, you also gave credence to the less credible aspects of the so-called skeptics' arguments. Here is what you wrote.

However I do think some of the objections from the non GW crowd are reasonable. For example it is reasonable to question how much the temperatures have increased. It is only in this century that weather-gathering has become a true science and thus to compare temperatures from today to ones from 1850 is of debatable value.

Further, I also think it is reasonable to say that a significant portion of the increase is the result of a normal cycle. Indeed reading suggest than the 1750-1900 period was actually unusually cool compared to normal reading so some of that increase may simply be restoring the norm.

I pointed out the problems with what you wrote. Those who make the first claim concerning the historical record are of necessity saying that the proxy data scientists use to derive temperature approximations are either wrong or useless. I am unaware of any proof they have for that position that has any backing in the larger scientific community. This is the way it works in science. It's not just enough to question. You also have to have an alternative explanation that stands up to examination. When proxy data is accepted by the scientific community there has to be a reason to reject it as the critics want. If a claim is made that there are natural cycles that are responsible for most, if not all, of the current warming trends then the person making the claim needs to explain what is causing this cycle they are saying exists that the overwhelming majority of climatologists, geologists and astronomers are apparently unaware of and do not acknowledge.

Might I suggest some reading material?

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/221... (From the series "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" on the natural cycles argument.)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2... (An article on one of the people who made his own massive mistakes when attempting to criticize Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. This is to address the kind of mixture of political and scientific that rhjames and antimarx make.)

Contrarians and consensus: The case of the midwife toad draws parallels between Lamarckian biologists from a century ago and climate change contrarians.

rhjames,

Why do you bother with the Bird blog? Just go straight to SEPP and Professor Singer. A questionable source if there ever was one in this debate. And Inhofe is just an utter loon. I couldn't care less what his committee report has to say. His claims of 650 scientists have been debunked in many places, here's just one. Given the nature of each of the claims you cite, I'm not about to believe your claim about a personal acquaintance knowing what he's talking about either. If you choose to view that as an insult, fine, but given the utter BS in the two things you do cite I just don't feel I can trust what else you are claiming either.

Thank you, antimarx, for proving me correct in my assessment of your initial claims. You have not in fact provided one scintilla of evidence for your claims. Did you even bother to read what you were linking to? Did you bother paying attention to what you were quoting? The quote in your last of 3 actually comes from the Lindzen piece. Who is Lindzen? Here are a few explanations for those who care.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rich...

You actually link to an article that shows it's your side of the debate that played games with NASA scientists and apparently don't even realize it. From the report on interference with NASA:

Accordingly, the NASA Office of Inspector General conducted an administrative investigation to examine reports of alleged “political interference,” predominantly by senior NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs officials, with the work of NASA scientists pertaining to climate change—to include whether NASA inappropriately prevented one of its scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen, from speaking to the media in December 2005. Our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control (i.e., news releases and media access). We also concluded that the climate change editorial decisions were localized within the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs; we found no credible evidence suggesting that senior NASA or Administration officials directed the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs to minimize information relating to climate change. To the contrary, we found that once NASA leadership within the Office of the Administrator were made aware of the scope of the conflict between the Office of Public Affairs and scientists working on climate change, they aggressively implemented new policies with a view toward improved processes in editorial decision-making relating to scientific public affairs matters. Further, it is our conclusion that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ actions were inconsistent with the mandate and intent of NASA’s controlling legislation—the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 19581 (Space Act) and NASA’s implementing regulations—insomuch as they prevented “the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination” of information concerning NASA’s activities and results. While we could not substantiate that Administration officials employed outside NASA approved or disapproved or edited specific news releases, we do, however, find by a preponderance of the evidence2 that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career Public Affairs Officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior Public Affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases. Although the scientific information alleged to be “suppressed” appeared to be otherwise available through a variety of Agency forums, we cannot reconcile that the Space Act would permit any purposeful obfuscation of scientific research by the Agency in any news dissemination forum as “appropriate” under the Act. The supporting evidence detailed in this report reveals that climate change scientists and the majority of career Public Affairs Officers strongly believe that the alleged actions taken by senior NASA Headquarters Public Affairs officials intended to systemically portray NASA in a light most favorable to Administration policies at the expense of reporting unfiltered research results. Senior NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs officials (political appointees3) deny such actions, claiming that many of the proposed news releases were poorly written or too technical in nature for meaningful broad public dissemination. With respect to NASA’s climate change research activities, we found no evidence indicating that NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate change scientists. In contrast to our findings associated with the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs, we found that NASA systematically distributed its technical climate change research throughout the scientific community and otherwise made it available through a variety of specialized forums, such as scientific journals, professional conferences, and public appearances by NASA scientists. Further, our recent audit of NASA’s formal process for releasing scientific and technical data resulting from research conducted by its employees and contractors found no evidence that the process was used as a means to inappropriately suppress the release of scientific or technical data at the four NASA Field Centers reviewed.4 Of the 287 authors surveyed at those Field Centers, none indicated that they had experienced or knew of someone who had experienced actual or perceived suppression of their research by NASA management.5 In short, the defects we found are associated with the manner of operation of the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs and are largely due to the actions of a few key senior employees of that office.

And the claims that paleo climate CO2 increases lagging temperature increases disproves AGW just aren't accurate.

Only one of the links you provided has anything to do with science. And it doesn't prove what you claim it does. You aren't qualified to criticize my opinion because you in fact are the one who hides behind a nickname that shows that the only thing you care about is political ideology. The only thing your rants proved to me is that your opinion on pretty much anything is probably as worthless as what you've posted here on a subject you know nothing about.

Jim - "I couldn't care less what his committee report has to say."

"I'm not about to believe your claim"

"A questionable source"

As Antimarx said, "no amount of fact is going to shake your belief". Try just one simple fact (or provide contrary proof). There's not one piece of data or evidence to support the hypothesis that increased CO2 above existing level has a significant effect on climate. Even the IPCC has admitted that they can't do this. (though you have to read the fine print - they don' t like to shout it out.)

For those of you who are interested in understanding the implications of the science that Antimarx cites as “CO2 lags temperature change by hundreds of years” the paper to which his/her comment links is both intriguing and instructive.

I’ll summarize it for you: the paper presents data on Termination III a global climatic warmng event occurring about a quarter of a million years ago. Indeed, the data reported does suggest that atmospheric CO2 concentrations peaked about 800 years after the highest temperature in the southern hemisphere had been reached. A casual glance at this result might then suggest that since southern hemisphere temperatures were falling while atmospheric CO2 concentrations were rising there is no reason to be concerned about the greenhouse effect of CO2. I suppose that was Antimarx’s point. But let’s read on, shall we?

The Termination III episode is understood to have been initiated – this is important - by orbital forcing and the maximum atmospheric CO2 concentration in that obviously non-anthropogenic episode was about 280 ppm. The continued rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations after the peak in temperature of the southern hemisphere is attributed to oceanic processes. And here comes the evisceration of Antimarx’s point in the paper’s conclusions:

“This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3).”

That is, the Termination III episode with its southern hemisphere lag is, in fact, compelling evidence of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global warming. The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is already more than 35% greater than during Termination III, 385 ppm and increasing by about 2 ppm per year. So the results and conclusions of this paper suggest that for an anthropogenic CO2 initiated greenhouse warming episode, we might expect oceanic processes to provide positive feedback through continued emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, amplifying the greenhouse warming for a period on the order of a thousand years.

Somehow I don’t think that was the sanguine message Antimarx intended to relay with “CO2 lags temperature change by hundreds of years”.

As I've said, caveat emptor!

Yes Jim/Futz, do you even read your material? Your link states in one of the first paragraphs, 'This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim.' Are you kidding me??? Can anyone educated on this topic read that without laughing hysterically? Every scientist involved in your cult is claiming that CO2 is driving recent temperature increases, that is the whole foundation of your argument why we have to reduce CO2 now. The problem in science right now (if you will do a little more research and read the link I posted on the corruption of science), is that you will not get funded, reviewed or published - and may in fact even lose your job/grants unless you leave the possibility open in your research that AGW theories 'could', 'possibly', 'maybe', 'potentially'...etc. And as far as Futz, note the key section in his quote, '...amplifying the initial orbital forcing...', what that means that they conclude/admit that CO2 played no role in the initial temperature increase (800 year lag - eight hundred!) contrary to everything, repeat EVERYTHING their current theory is based on. The rest of his rant is predictable speculation and propaganda. Also take note on how Jim has all the smear tactics down for me and my sources (a common tactic of the cult) and yet laughably cites realclimate.org - the ridiculous propaganda site trying to masquerade as science. All of their 'debunking' follows the same cookie-cutter format - if you take the time to analyze it line-by-line they actually support the skeptics argument but then try to spin what is said through unrelated scientific jargon to provide some ridiculously inprobable conjecture as to how current AGW theories could still be true. Anyone who quotes realclimate.org can be ignored as the fanatic that they are. I urge open minded people not to take my word for it or anyone else - read, read, read! There is plenty of research out there and this is too critical to just listed to these quacks and hand over your wallet and your freedom. Debating Jim/Futz is pointless, no amount of data will ever shake their belief in AGW - we could have glaciers destroying the upper half of North America and they would still be screaming CO2/Global Warming. This whole movement is a scam for money and power.

There are levels of ignorance that are just dumbfounding. Both jhjames and antimarx display it.

I thought of making detailed responses but the simple fact that jhjames thinks that drastically increasing amounts of a known greenhouse gas would have no effect on the climate shows that the effort would be wasted. As for me ignoring his citations, it's very simple. Once James Inhofe was a reasonable Republican. I voted for him a couple of decades past when I lived in Tulsa. He has gone completely off the rail on this subject as a senator from a state that derives a huge portion of its economy from oil and gas. This is not an ad hominem fallacy, but is based on his history of making these false claims concerning scientific evidence and actually claiming that the idea of AGW is a hoax, which would require a vast conspiracy of scientists. This is a valid reason for ignoring him. The same thing applies to Singer. He is in fact a questionable source who takes money from people with a much much larger financial stake in discrediting science than any researcher has in simply doing their work.

As far as antimarx, this might get me in hot water with the management of this blog but his writings are ignorant, incompetent, inaccurate, rude and insulting. They prove nothing but his own ignorance of science and his purely political motivations for claiming that a scientific consensus among the overwhelming majority of scientists in climatology and related fields is in fact a "cult". His last few posts just prove my point about his rants, nothing about the facts of the matter.

Well Patrick, I imagine you knew this subject was going to be a bit of a hot potato eh? ;-) After reading the last several posts though, I concur with Jim. It strikes me there are some people who choose a belief FIRST, and THEN cherry-pick only the information that supports that belief - while downplaying or ignoring all the rest. This is exactly why I commented earlier that it's so unfortunate when science becomes politicized (or personalized). The fact is, when people lose their objectivity, they also lose their ability to reason (and communicate) effectively. As I said earlier, good science includes being skeptical, which means examining, re-examining, and taking into account ALL relevant information and data, independent of the result. This does NOT, however, include feeding skepticism by discarding legitimate data because it doesn't fit our preference, ideology, or comfort levels.

(On further consideration, comment withdrawn.)

Elevate the discourse JSpencer and I'm happy to be right there with you. I have been attacked hundreds of times on blogs/comments over the years by the Jim/Futz fanatics and have no problem sinking the their level either. Your point cuts right to the heart of the matter, we should be having open debate about this vital topic by experts instead of screaming consensus, hurling insults and rushing into dramatic world-altering solutions.

I said that antimarx was wrong in his first post. Now he says that I called him a liar. I stand by what I said. He wrote a lengthy rant full of conspiracy theory ideas and made 6 claims. I said he should provide some proof for his claims. His follow ups were nothing but opinion pieces that did not prove anything with the three links provided. There were two opinion pieces by people of questionable ethics and integrity and an actual scientific paper that did not prove what he claimed it did. He followed this up with an utterly ridiculous pair of posts "listing" people and qualifications that in fact once again is a lot of wasted screen space which proves nothing. He has done nothing since but hurl insults, call me names, lie about what I've written and make claims about my intelligence and opinions that he in fact cannot know or comprehend. Then he says writes that he would appreciate elevating the discourse. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Somehow after everything else he has written it rings all too hollow.

Can we get back to scientific questions now?

For people who actually wonder about some of the claims made by AGW denialists and the responses to them Grist has a series called How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic. While some consider it an unfortunate title, I think most remember a certain highly insulting book by a right wing "pundit".

Then there is the web site associated with the book by Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming.

Nature.com has this article on what 2008 brought us in terms of learning about climate change as well as their overall section concerning it.

If you're actually curious as to what the heck the U.N. has to do with the debate here is a gateway to their web site on the issue.

Jim - "the simple fact that rhjames thinks that drastically increasing amounts of a known greenhouse gas would have no effect on the climate shows that the effort would be wasted" thanks - that seems to indicate that you have little understanding of the science behind the hypotheses. Climate science has established that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, and that at current levels we have already experienced most of the effect. Doubling the CO2 will not double the effect. I'm sure (hope) you've heard the analogy of painting a window black - no light gets through. If you give it another coat, it doesn't make it any darker. The IPCC acknowledges this, and scientists agree that the maxim direct further effect would be less than 1 degC. The hypothesis (and IPCC models) then depends on positive feedback (eg increased water vapour - the main greenhouse gas) being stronger than negative feedback (eg emission of heat is proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature) . There's also the overlapping spectrum of water vapour and CO2. At this stage there's no evidence to indicate that positive feedback dominates, and temperature/CO2 data from the past 10 years suggests that it's not positive feedback.

You probably won't believe any of this - it goes against your cause, and you've already called me a liar.

So the fact that you so casually dismiss my comment reveals either the lack of your scientific understanding, or you think everyone here are fools. You should have given some technical reason to dismiss my comment, knowing that most people here would have some understanding of the science, and the technical validity of my comment.

But of course speculation on the future of our planet's climate depends on computer models that are still under development. They are not and most likely cannot be completely accurate. But they don't have to be for us to use them as tools so long as their limitations as well as their strengths are recognized. Here is an article from New Scientist's web site on the issue from their series about climate myths. An extremely pertinent extract is this:

Climate modellers may occasionally be seduced by the beauty of their constructions and put too much faith in them. Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism - that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

We need to improve the models to the greatest extent possible but it should also be recognized that improvements have been being constantly made. Whenever I see someone using a study from years ago to prove a point it's always a good idea to look and see if the subject has been addressed more recently with new data, models or models based on new data.

OK then! Now that we've reached "consensus" and are all ready to sit down and have a beer together, I'd like to be the first to thank Patrick for the instrumental part he played in uniting us in common cause! ;-)

rhjames,

This was your initial statement.

There's not one piece of data or evidence to support the hypothesis that increased CO2 above existing level has a significant effect on climate.

It's very carefully chosen, isn't it? It says nothing about what the increase from 270 PPM to 360 PPM, which is what has happened since before the beginning of the industrial revolution to today Yes, the effect is logarithmic, not straight line. This is agreed upon. However, you criticize the idea of positive feedback dominating with no evidence to back your claim on that subject. Why are they wrong in their inclusion of positive feedback in the models? I don't think your explanation holds water when compared to the climatologists who disagree with you.

JIM,

We're about to change the world based on the expectation of positive feedback being dominant. I'd like a bit of evidence before plunging into this. There's plenty of qualified scientists who agree with me eg Prof Bob Carter James Cook University - (an acquaintance .)

You asked for some evidence. For a start, for the last 10 years there's been no warming, although CO2 has increased 5%. If the positive feedback was dominant, and CO2 is the big driving force, I would have expected to see some response, even in that time. If nothing else, it indicates to me that CO2 is not the driving force it's made out to be. The models predict the "signature" 10km above the tropics - it isn't there. At this stage, I'm finding evidence against the hypothesis, but little to support it, other than mathematical models.

Well, that explains a lot. Carter is a perfect example of people who let their ideology get in the way of science. In other words, he isn't that darned qualified. Yes, he buys into the claim you make about no warming for the last 10 years that you repeat. But it's wrong and once again I'll provide a link to just one of the debunkings its received. They're not hard to find. In fact, they're so easy I really should include this one and yet another one. Yes, things have warmed in spite of the contrarian claims to the contrary. Bob Cook is more qualified in terms of his conservative ideology than his scientific integrity. This is your acquaintance.

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

"I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change. "If he has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process," Dr Pearman said. "That is what the rest of us have to do." He said he was letting the fossil fuel industry off the hook.

Emphasis mine. Wow. Whenever a scientist speculates outside his field, even if it's a closely related one, and attempts to denigrate peer review sets off alarms in the scientific community and for good reasons.

Jim, the bold portion of that quote raises a red flag allright. The idea that Carter would try to downplay the importance of peer review in (legitimate) science suggests he may not fully understand what modern science is in the first place. It's a bit shocking actually.

I guess it's fairly apparent why I don't spend a lot of time debating about the anthropogenic nature of global warming. It's rather like wrestling a pig -- you get dirty and the pig likes it. I'd rather talk about solutions. And as luck would have it, the solutions that fit the threat of global warming are the same solutions that fit many other very important problems that also need to be urgently addressed. The overheated rhetoric associated with global warming is hijacking attention away from them. And that's not only a shame, it's downright ridiculous.

Ricorun,

You've moved on to where I wanted to go next in any case. I agree completely with Patrick (Or at least how I interpret what he wrote.) that the idea of some kind of repeat of Carter's appeal to the American people is a non-starter as an approach to solving this problem. The best approach is to treat it as part of our energy policies and everything else follows. There are existing technologies that could save us a lot of energy with no major changes in how we do things with the exception that use of broadband and videoconferencing could really cut down on physical travel for business. I've seen a system that is just amazing in terms of the quality of the video that is delivered over almost any broadband connection with decent bandwidth. The important thing is that we need to figure out a way to roll these technologies out. One of the things that could be done as part of the incoming administration's fiscal stimulus package would be to provide home energy audits for those who couldn't afford them on their own and subsidize the improvements that the audit recommends. It saves our country energy for years to come and frees up money from household energy spending to go to other parts of the economy. Don't just spend the bucks on improving energy efficiency in federal government buildings but underwrite those improvements for local governments, especially our schools. Just think what that would do for their budgets. And if anyone can come up with a viable plan to help get old gas guzzlers that pollute worse than newer cars off the road ASAP it would be a good thing for everyone.

For the longer run we need newer, better technologies and I'm a big believer in the X-Prize approach. In this case a set of criteria for a given device that consumes energy, such as an air conditioner, would be set and the inventions that meet the criteria win the prize. There could even be "partial" prizes where a series of escalating criteria would exist. The closer to the ideal the larger the prize but innovations that move towards the goal are rewarded as well. Don't specify what technology gets us there, just set a goal and work towards it. And these improvements would almost certainly find eager markets in those countries that need to clean up their air.

Jim, Is that your attempt to sidestep answering to the evidence I provided, and you asked for - rubbish one of the qualified scientists? As Prof Carter said - forget the politics, and focus on the science and evidence. For some reason, you have a problem with this suggestion.

It's interesting that, despite his qualifications as a palaeontologist, marine geologist, and environmental scientist, Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences, and his research on earth sediments and climate change, and publications on climate change, you consider him unqualified. Better to listen to someone like Al Gore - an ex politician and theology dropout who is making a fortune on his story. Tell me, what qualifications do you expect before someone might have wise advice? Perhaps a railroad engineer - Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.

rhjames ~ "We're about to change the world based on the expectation of positive feedback being dominant."

Sure, just like we're about to abolish war, ignorance, hunger, and disease. Wouldn't it be great!

As for Gore and Carter, the existence of AGW is independent of what either of those guys happen to think about it one way OR the other.

Excellent comment Jim. And what you suggest is exactly the level of discussion I think would be most productive. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of incentivizing building retrofits, both public and private. There are considerable regulatory barriers that need to be overcome (e.g., broad success would basically require utility profit decoupling), and it would cost money at first, but a growing number of studies suggest the savings over the long run would be substantial. Amory Lovins has a great line about the potential of energy efficiency. It goes something like this: "the low-hanging fruit is building up around our ankles and sloshing over our boots while the tree keeps pelting our heads with more".

As for methods for stimulating development and deployment of new technologies, I personally prefer the feed in tarriff (FIT) approach of all the ones I'm familiar with. As far as I can tell, FITs can be scalable (from utility scale to rooftop), incremental, goal-oriented (rather than dependent on one or more particular innovations), is essentially bureaucracy-free, and is difficult to game. But hey, I'm willing to consider all approaches, and I think it would be beneficial to discuss them.

rhjames,

No one has done as much to discredit Carter as Carter himself. His membership in the Institute for Public Affairs shows that he is, in spite of his claims to the contrary, more interested in the politics than the science. He and those like him remind me of the geologist that after finding Jesus (via a very conservative Biblical literalist church) has spent his time trying to prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old and all the features that the science says are erosion and signs of the age of the planet are in fact just what happened when the Great Flood swept over the Earth while Noah saved all the animals in the ark. Carter has the same level of credibility after his statements like the one I quoted and his repetition of discredited "skeptic" claims even after they have been debunked.

Jim - still side stepping the issues? I'm sure you'd dream up up clever words to discredit any scientist who spoke against your direction. Still no comment on the evidence you asked for. It sounds like you wish it would go away - a common enough reaction.

rhjames,

You and your friend made claims concerning trends of the last decade. I posted multiple links to places discrediting those claims. In fact one of the articles itself had links to additional places discrediting other claims Carter made while the other one explains in detail just why the claim about global warming ending in 1998 is inherently dishonest. Just because you don't want to acknowledge them and Carter's venality in misrepresenting the science doesn't mean I have to repeat myself over and over again.

Jim - is this yet another sidestep? I bet you dance a mean foxtrot. You asked for evidence, and I provided it. You're last post said you'd already provided links. ok - I went back and checked them. I can't find any that address either of my specific evidence. One (Grist) at least attempts to comment on "There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming". I concedes that this is true - there "is no proof", and goes on to say that it's just a theory and computer models. As the document is more than 2 years old, it doesn't see just how incorrect these models proved to be.

For your convenience, I have pasted the evidence below. Note that I don't use links - just a couple of simple basic facts that are known by anyone who has studied the science.

For a start, for the last 10 years there's been no warming, although CO2 has increased 5%. If the positive feedback was dominant, and CO2 is the big driving force, I would have expected to see some response, even in that time. If nothing else, it indicates to me that CO2 is not the driving force it's made out to be. The models predict the "signature" 10km above the tropics - it isn't there.

"For your convenience, I have pasted the evidence below. Note that I don't use links - just a couple of simple basic facts that are known by anyone who has studied the science."

OK....now I will say that you are lying, rhjames. What you wrote is not a fact that is recognized by everyone who knows the science, it is only a another lie repeated endlessly by the so-called skeptics. This is why you don't use links. You don't link for the same reason your friend Carter is terrified of peer review. Because what you post is completely wrong and in fact the links I provided prove it. Yet you claim that the opposite is true. Sorry, but a bald-faced claim with no supporting evidence that hasn't already been debunked provides no proof of anything. I don't need to sidestep anything because you are perfectly capable of falling flat on your face by yourself. Fortunately the other readers probably don't have your problem and understood the point of the articles I linked to.

There's that foxtrot again. What can you possibly call a lie in these basic points?

What do you want, or do not know? CO2 has increased 5% in the past 10 years. Surely you don't need me to back this up.

No temperature increase for the past 10 years? Go directly to Hadcrut data yourself and plot it. I could even Email you the plot to save you the trouble. - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/h....

Perhaps you don't know about the GW signature. You can read extracts from a report by Dr. David Evans on http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22353/632.... It even tells you how to go direct to the source.

I can just about pre-write your response. You'll try to question the information source validity. I'll just warn you that the Hadley Centre was set up to help prove global warming. Dr. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Sorry I can't offer you a movie star or ex politician.

Please expose my lies. I'm sure anyone else reading this will be as interested as I. Even the IPCC agrees with the basic points I've made.

Unfortunately for your claims concerning Hadley Centre data, here is what they have to say about your claims. In other words if asked, the experts at Hadley won't back up your claims about what their data actually means.

Secondly, you apparently do not even have a clue as to who David Evans is and what the nature of his "consultant" work was. His doctorate is in electrical engineering, not any field even remotely related to climatology. Evans worked as a computer programmer designing a carbon accounting system to help the Australian Greenhouse Office track the carbon footprint of Australia for reports for their obligation under the Kyoto treaty. He was not a "consultant" of any kind. His article that the blog you linked to referred to was just as bad as the claims that you and Carter make. The article, which appeared in the Australian, is debunked here by Tim Lambert. While I point out that his credentials that you present are completely inaccurate what is in fact more important is that his "science" is even more inaccurate and consists of false claims, inaccuracies and assertions that have in fact been proven incorrect.

"Please expose my lies."

You asked, I delivered.

Jim - as I predicted, you ignored the data and attacked the person. Let me make it easy for you. This is the global temperature anomaly data from Hadley for the past 10 years.
1998 - 0.526
1999 - 0.302
2000 - 0.277
2001 - 0.406
2002 - 0.455
2003 - 0.465
2004 - 0.444
2005 - 0.475
2006 - 0.421
2007 - 0.399
2008 - 0.326. (this will probably be lower when December is included)

Now, if you can still look at this data and tell me it's warming, I'll stop bothering you. We must have different systems of mathematics. For me, 2 is bigger than 1.

Actually rhjames, you reported on the last 11 years. If you ran a linear regression on the last 10 years (1999 through 2008) you would obtain a positive slope. Likewise, if you ran a regression on the last fully complete 10 years (1998-2007), the slope is positive (even though 1998 was unusually warm). It's only when you include all 11 years that you get a slightly negative slope. I don't know what that suggests to you, but it suggests to me that you have to be very careful about cherry-picking the data in order to conclude from a short term trend that the earth is not warming.

"Jim - as I predicted, you ignored the data and attacked the person. Let me make it easy for you. This is the global temperature anomaly data from Hadley for the past 10 years."

This is another lie. What I presented was Hadley Centre's own interpretation of their work. The devil's in the details, including the ones you choose to ignore. It's called cherry picking. Explain if you will why without going into the usual conspiracy theory BS why the Hadley Centre refuses to interpret their own data in a way that agrees with you.

In addition I showed a link to considered analysis and refutation of what Evans wrote as well as showing that he did not have the credentials you and he claimed he had. If you lie about one thing, such as credentials, what else are you lying about becomes a valid question but given that Evans commits the usual denialist crime against science of repeating already debunked claims and I show it then it is simply more proof of the dishonesty inherent in your statements when you claim that all I am doing is attacking his credentials. If you choose to present claims by liars, BS artists, conspiracy theorists and con men don't be surprised when it is pointed out what they are.

There's obviously a few writers here on the global warming payroll.

rhjames' data is taken from IPCC/Hadley Centre/UK Met Office. This is the basis for all the GW nonsense.

A regression using Excel shows a tiny cooling (-0.00048) .
If 1998 is excluded there is tiny warming (0.007)
In past 7 years there is a cooling (-0.1)

IPCC forecast for business as usual - warming (0.4)

The IPCC states that recent data should be used to validate their models' forecast of a 0.4 warming. Most clearly, the data shows that the forecasts of the IPCC are WRONG. The IPCC models (like all approximate models) have no ability to forecast the future.

The current trend is clearly clobal cooling, NOT warming.

Ricorun - you are correct about cherry picking, and you are skilled in the art. As DrADB showed, you can cherry pick a period that shows tiny warming, though not statistically significant. Most selections within this period show no warming. The thing is, for the past 11 years, the warming has effectively stopped, despite CO2 increasing 5%. If CO2 was the strong driver predicted, we should see some influence.

I know that this is blamed on other natural cooling influences - when it warms, it's blamed on CO2, when it cools, other reasons are assumed. If I look at data over the past 2,000 years, there's nothing unusual going on. Why suddenly blame CO2? Why no one or many of the other possibilities? It seems that the only ones pushing this are those who are financially dependent on it, and those who believe the media and don't bother to study the data themselves.

No, Ricorun is not the one doing the cherry picking and neither am I. Neither are we "on the global warming payroll". The link I provided was directly from the same organization that rhjames and DrADB claim to be relying on for data. Yet they completely and utterly refuse to acknowledge what the Hadley Centre has to say about their interpretation of the data, which is that it is wrong. Frankly, the scientists at the centre are far more qualified to interpret their data than the denialists will ever be, including the two resident conspiracy theorists.

I must say the debate has been entertaining ;)

Thanks

Patrick - yes, it's been interesting.

I like to go back as far as possible to the raw data. That way I don't have to rely on interpretation from others with their own agenda. In this way I've picked up various errors. Also, its surprising the variation between what the media reports, and what the data says. Sea level is a good example - we all hear how it's rising, yet when I checked the nearest recording point data (Fort Denison) I found no change for the last 2 years, 8mm increase in the previous 25 years, and 32mm in the 25 years before then. Also, it's been increasing for the past 20,000 years.

This is a long way from what the media is telling us. Islands are disappearing, and shoreline washing away. This trend is supposed to change and increase about 400mm in the next 40 years. I'll continue to monitor with great interest. So far, the models again aren't working.

When it comes to cherry picking, I am using the same process as the IPCC used as the basis for their global alarm. Read page 45 in the most recent IPCC report. They claim to have validated their models using recent data. (Older data obviously can't be used because it is used to adjust the paramters of the models, in order to forecast the future). When data for the past decade is used to validate the models, no warming is evident. According to the IPCC's own suggestion, this invalidates their models.

Cherry pick on a broader scale, using the graph in the first IPCC report, showing the Medieval Warm Period, and it is evident that global temperatures are much cooler now than they were 800 years ago.

Here's the Hadley Centre/UK Met Office/IPCC data for you to plot for yourself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/h...
Plot the temperatures and do your own interpretations, rather than relying on those with vested interests.

The first thing DrADB said was this: "There's obviously a few writers here on the global warming payroll.". At that point it became obvious that anything else he wrote was going to be pure crap. Useless and dishonest. rhjames of course agreed with him. I'm not bothering any more. rhjames says he prefers raw data. But neither he nor his friends are capable of actually analyzing it, simply oversimplifying and cherry picking. Enough. Neither one of the twins are worth the effort and I don't think anyone is really following this thread any longer. The only thing I've learned from this is that a modern political conservative is incapable of actually paying attention to science.

Jim - so you didn't read the comment from Patrick E? But you're probably right - no-one else is out there. Your insults and personal attacks probably detract too much from the real issues.

Hey Jim, and other users...I have come over here from Greenpeace forum to warn you about DRADB and rhjames, they hang in pairs a lot, (either they are buddies or are one and the same) spamming up climate change forums, all over the net, they are not worth your effort.