Global warming skepticism is pseudo-science. The planet is definitely warming. The effects of greenhouse gases are well-known and very easy to understand. Human actions are directly and indirectly pumping unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

Put 2 and 2 together people, stop being morons.

Skepticism is healthy, but it can also be rooted in absolute ignorance. For instance- creationist skepticism of evolution, geocentrist skepticism of heliocentrism.

But seeing so many sheep tout global warming skepticism as revolutionary dissent has proven to me that even to this day, the government and/or corporate entities can very effectively manipulate the public into such logical flops. The coal companies LOVE global warming skepticism, the Bush administration LOVES it too. Just be careful not to LOVE big brother without even realizing it.

REPLY: Warning, no f-words allowed here, it is neither relevant nor neccessary. Rants are allowed, but need to be on topic, Please don’t do it again.

For good measure, I have also sent the same message to Houghton Mifflin myself… ( http:##www.hmco.com#contact#contactform.html )

I am writing to support Houghton Mifflin against the debate-stifling, coarse, ethically unsound attempts by Friends of the Earth to force Houghton Mifflin to immediately issue a corrective packet to all the school districts currently using the textbook: American Government, 11th edition, by Professors James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, Jr.

I also ask that Houghton Mifflin keep up in the future too, its consensus-challenging, fact-based outlook that can only enhance the capabilities for critical thinking in high school pupils.

The reason? Chapter 21 on Environmental Policy is a godsend, not a “disgrace” as claimed by Friends of the Earth.

We trust the textbook authors to be fair and speak the truth. To address global warming as “enmeshed in scientific uncertainty” is to describe things as they are. Far from dismissing the work of the nation’s and the world’s top climate scientists, such text underlines the huge challenges facing them and us in understanding the relationship between humanity and the rest of the planet.

We need the nation’s youth to be given all the information we have available, not just the so-called “consensus”, so that they are able to make their own well-informed decisions. For years, Houghton Mifflin has provided that information–and I am encouraged to see that a company with such a highly respected reputation is continuing to publish along the same tradition.

I am copying my governor with this message to ensure that my state knows that there is absolutely no problem whatsoever with this textbook!

Sincerely

“Recently, Dr. James Hansen, PhD, wrote a letter to the Houghton Mifflin Company, in an attempt to pressure them to change wording in a textbook. While I appreciate Dr. Hansen’s right to express his opinion as a private citizen, I am concerned by his use of official NASA stationery in this effort. First, it implies that it is official NASA policy that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring, and the fact is beyond debate. Is that truly the position of NASA? Second, I am troubled by a PUBLIC official using his capacity as a representative of the government to pressure a PRIVATE company to change its product to suit his view as a government representative. I personally find that very troubling.
Please advise me if I am wrong on either of these thoughts. I have written a letter to my congressman asking him to investigate the propriety of Dr. Hansen’s letter, and look forward to a response from him and NASA regarding this important issue.
Here is a link to Dr. Hansen’s letter.

http://www.foe.org/textbook/Hansen_Letter.pdf

Thank you for your time.”

While the form of your prose is sound, its import is both tendentious and mendacious.

Hansen dismisses those of his critics that are politically insensitive, e.g., Steve McIntyre on the Y2K flub, with a wave of the hand, as “Jesters”.

Yet, when politically vulnerable he is quick to raise a controversy and bring pressure to bear. When the head of NASA at a bureau conference suggested that the science re: AGW was uncertain, Hansen immediately went to press with “I nearly fell out of my chair!”. His superior was promptly and suitably chastened.

Where Hansen feels politically at risk, he levels the charge of censorship, ludicrous in light of the chart on evidence.

Men fear most that evil which lives in their own heart.

“I first got interested in the whole AGW farce when Hansen et al claimed that the ‘debate was over’ – anyone who knows scientific method knows that this statement is unscientific to its very core”.

Exactly the same for me, except the statement was from Tim Flannery (who went on to advocate climate engineering, so we could control the atmospere and dial up any climate we want). You don’t need to know much about “climate science” to know that this cannot possibly be true. So why not put up your best theory and enjoy the victory over your critics, as is normally the case in scientific circles? Obviously because you don’t think you’ll win.

“He said there’s a storm coming in.”
“I know …”

It would be peculiar to have a detailed discussion of science in a government textbook, and in fact that is not what the text presents. Your argument that Hansen is attempting to stifle a scientific debate is off the mark because that is not the debate the text engages.

Howard Frumkin, a senior official of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gave a detailed summary on the likely health impacts of global warming at a congressional hearing. But he refrained from giving an opinion on whether carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas, should be regulated as a danger to public health. (if it’s so bad, just ban the stuff)

And could this guy gain employment anywhere outside of government making statements like this:

“To the science, there is strong evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas … and that there is strong evidence that climate change affects public health in many ways,” responded Frumkin, carefully gauging his words, when pressed by Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., on the issue. (em phasis added)

To paraphrase a line from a famous poem: I didn’t think that I would ever see a human being more stupid than a tree, but I think I just have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=265&tstamp=200512

This has the best graph I’ve found. It indicates that AMO is at its peak, but still has some time to go at current levels.

I read something recently I can’t find now which said a downteurn is expected in c. 5 years (which would make the current cycle a little short, acc. to the graph.

PDO is 29 years into a 25-30 year cycle, so we can probably expect a cooling Real Soon Now. (Note that there are ups and downs within the larger cycle. We are currently headed towards cooler, acc. to this graph):

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/