The 31,000 who say “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change

Of course the alarmists folks will denounce this as they did the last one, and there are bound to be a few unscrupulous types, such M.J. Murphy of Toronto who blogs as Big City Lib, who by his own admission, made false statements to get “weaseled onto the list” (his words). There are others who will do their best to crash the list so they can claim it is a sham, but there is one name on this list worth noting:

Freeman Dyson is one of the world’s most eminent physicists. You can read an essay about his views on climate change, posted here on WUWT a on 11/05/2007.

You can read all about the Oregon Petition Project here at the Financial Post.

I did not sign on to the Oregon list, but rather chose to add my name to the Manhattan Declaration this spring. I also signed the very first petition of this type, back in 1997 called the Leipzig Declaration.

If you want to add your name to the either the Manhattan Declaration or the OISM petition, you can still do so. Here are the links:

Manhattan Declaration via an an interactive PDF of the declaration, which includes a form ready for completing and submitting.

Oregon Petition Project via a mail in PDF form.

It will be interesting to see how the MSM and alarmist bloggers spin this one. I’m sure they’ll do their best to minimize it as being “irrelevant”. I believe at some point though, there will be recognition.

Nature of course will be the final arbiter of truth, such as what we see here in global temperatures from satellite and surface since 2002.


Graph from Joe D’Aleo at ICECAP – click for larger image

UPDATE: 5/21/08

Honor system abuser, BigCityLib, aka Michael J. Murphy of Toronto reports that he in fact did NOT make the list. By his own admission he lied about his background and falsified documents to try to have his name added, but apparently the petition screening process found his deception and denied his application.  But he says he’ll keep trying and encourages others to lie and falsify documents such as he has.

On an unrelated note, I orginally had 32,000 in the title because that is how the original email sent to me (third party, not OISM) had it. Upon further inspection I note the number is closer to 31,000 so I’ve edited the title to reflect that.

About these ads

114 thoughts on “The 31,000 who say “no convincing evidence” for human induced climate change

  1. You’re marginalized as an activist if you speak out against AGW.
    But you’re reputed as a responsible scientist if you support AGW.

    REPLY: I speak out against AGW but I support solar power and drive an electric car. I guess that puts me in the cognitive dissonance category since I don’t exactly fit in the other two.

  2. Anthony, I don’t think you are exhibiting “cognitive dissonance,” at all. The desire to move toward more “sustainable” forms of energy, and a lack of belief in AGW are NOT Mutually Exclusive, or Contradictory attitudes.

    I, personally, believe that Global Petroleum Production is in the “Process” of Peaking. As a result, I strongly support biofuels, as I perceive them as a “bridging” technology that is available to us “Right Now.” I’ve, also, become more, and more, convinced that AGW is an Extraordinary Amount of total Horse Hockey piled Incredibly high.

    Two Different Events; Requiring Two Different Sets of Analysis.

    Oh, Thanks for a Wonderful Blog. Just about my First Stop every morning.

  3. Are those graphs Total Surface, Land+Ocean, or just land?

    REPLY: Land + Ocean aka “mud” ;-)

  4. Freeman Dyson was famous 50 years ago (if its really him that signed).

    C’mon, dude, I sent ‘em a letter consisting of the scientific knowledge I had acquired in 20 minutes of skimming a real science paper. They were willing to send me as many copies of the petition as I wanted to distribute among my “scientist” friends, including the homeless guy that goes by the name of Dr. Von Dickenstein.

    And if you wanted to sign the Manhattan Declaration you could have made the request via email. Even easier.

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2008/04/fun-with-manahtten-declaration-or-who.html#links

    Charles Murray, the guy that owned the Crandall Canyon mine, got his whole family to sign up.

    Cmon Anthony, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

    PS. Tough shit about your electric car. I run to and from work every day. Totally emission free except when I fart.

    REPLY: Sage advice from the liberal who by his own written and published admission: lies, falsifies documents, and takes advantage of an honor system for his own twisted amusement. Sir, have you no shame?

    Note to readers: BCL’s MO is to do and say outrageous things to draw traffic to his site, don’t give him the hits.

  5. OT:
    can someone explain the magnetogram for today – there are two low latitude areas that have opposite magnetic polarity. I’m wondering which one is cycle 23, and which one is cycle 24.

    Thanks for the info, and keep up the good work!

    REPLY: Magnetic polarity on sunspots reverses when the solar equator is crossed.

  6. Anthony wrote:

    “Note to readers: BCL’s MO is to do and say outrageous things to draw traffic to his site, don’t give him the hits.”

    Yeah, don’t find out how easy it is for any semi-illiterate moron like me to get on the Oregon list of “scientists” opposed to the theory of AGW. Stay ignorant. It feels better.

  7. BCL, it wouldn’t take too much effort to determine if Dyson actually signed the petition. But I guess throwing insults is even easier.

  8. It will be interesting to see how the MSM and alarmist bloggers spin this one. I’m sure they’ll do their best to minimize it as being “irrelevant”.

    For the MSM to minimize this petition, they will first need to report it.

    AS much as I would prefer a world where this would happen, I will not be holding my breath to await it.

  9. The warmers started a while back dissing the Oregon Petition. I very much doubt that they will even recognize it this time. they have a hard time understanding that many of their own scientists aren’t the most credentialed either. but they are all “climate specialists”. While BCL is willing to skew the stats by falsely signing the paper I am not. I have been accused of being a skeptic of global warming. I am not, I am a skeptic of man made global warming. I have even been called a denier. I agree that the earth has been warming since the last ice age and will until it starts to cool for the next ice age. however long the cycle takes. I guess that makes me a denier.

    Bill

    PS the cooling may have started.

  10. Anthony, I agree with you. CO2 drives the climate is a joke, switching to some other form of fuel is not, but we wil never be free from using oil. BCL should focus his energy more on real environmemtal issue.
    By the way, Pacific Legal Foundation will be giving notice to the dept. of interior to remove the polar bear from the threaten list.

  11. If Freeman Dyson is one of the world’s most eminent physicists, why would he sign the petition saying he has a BA in the field Mathematics?

    REPLY: A good question that is easily answered when you read his biography.

  12. I wasn’t on those lists/petitions, but I guess I could have been.

    MS specializing in Solar Engineering. A partner in Applied Solar Engineering Inc. – many solar projects in Texas (library, bank, elementary school, HUD apartment complexes, an oil field, etc.). Received a process patent on an oil field solar system (to separate the brine from the oil, and use the brine (a waste that needed to be hauled away and disposed of) to create a salt-gradient solar pond to produce power.

    This was in the early 80’s before Reagan eliminated the tax credits and put us out of business. Except for that, Reagan was a great president.

    So they can subtract BCL and add my name. Or is it too late to sign up?

    REPLY: The lists remain open, you can indeed sign up

  13. Having seen the picture of Big city lib, he needs to run more and modify his diet.

    BCL is just McClelland with the f words.

  14. quote:
    OT:
    can someone explain the magnetogram for today – there are two low latitude areas that have opposite magnetic polarity. I’m wondering which one is cycle 23, and which one is cycle 24.

    Thanks for the info, and keep up the good work!

    REPLY: Magnetic polarity on sunspots reverses when the solar equator is crossed.
    end quote

    So these are both cycle 23 spots, because they are both in the low latitudes?

    Thx

    REPLY: Yes, both near the equator, cycle 23.

  15. BCL: “I run to and from work every day. Totally emission free….”

    BCL apparently doesn’t breathe when he runs or he is a vegetable.

    I know you don’t want us to feed trolls but I can’t resist when I read such dribble.

  16. Doesn’t make sense to me, this issue of the number of scientists who believe one way or the other somehow lending credibility to the belief. If 9,999,999 ‘scientists’ believe that 2+2 =5 and 1 believes that 2+2 =4, are the 9,999,999 right because there are more of them? Don’t think so.

    Science isn’t democratic and, it seems to me, that most of the time the correct belief is held by the minority, at least at first.

    Dr Eugene Parker, who predicted the existence of Solar Wind in 1958 , was excoriated by his fellow physicists at first. He was literally told by a ‘consensus’ of eminent scientists, “Parker, if you knew anything about the subject, you could not possibly be suggesting this. We have known for decades that interplanetary space is a hard vacuum, pierced only intermittently by beams of energetic particles from the Sun.” Of course Dr. Parker was proved right and now his beliefs are the ‘consensus’.

  17. BCL hits will = o soon so guess you wont see him/her posting here again hoisted by his own petard LOL

  18. I find these lists a silly distraction. My Dad can beat up your Dad. Those with the most toys win.

    Someone comes up with a list – the number of signers is approximately as comprehensive as a Web poll. Then you have to vet the list, then promote and defend it. And for what? A lot of scientists can be wrong – have been wrong. No matter how you set up the list, some of the scientists are likely to know less than many non-scientists running around.

    And none of it leads to any new insights into how climate works.

    Ah well, it’s probably just me. At a product rollout for a past employer, it was quite amazing how the things important to motivating the sales force have essentially nothing to do with the product and are completely different from what motivates the engineers. I suppose I should be looking at people who get impressed at such lists. Politicians and other people who don’t understand science but want to be concerned citizens may lead the pack.

    Ah well, it is harmless and if it helps prevent throwing billions at a problem that may not exist, it might be a good thing.

  19. BCL apparently doesn’t breathe when he runs or he is a vegetable.

    And he uses a computer, several actually, since he’s got a blog, and who knows how many other sites. So he’s pumping out more emissions than a short daily car trip would amount to anyway. That is if CO2 really mattered in this respect.

  20. Running to and from work consumes more calories than driving. So he has to eat more food. Which means more trips to the stores, and more deliveries to the stores, and more CO2 emissions. Not sure where his free energy comes into play.

  21. Is there really a scientist called Philip A. Dick, the same as the (late) science fiction writer?

    REPLY: You are asking the wrong person.

  22. ATTN: Kum

    Forget biofuels. Methanex (Vancouver, BC) sells methanol for $1.50/Us gal, and it can be used instead of just gasoline. See the racing cars run on TV? They fuel up on wood alcohol and run like stink! .

  23. Must share this with y’all; shamed as I am that we Australians have come of age; but not yet reached the age of reason:

    AUSTRALIA’S emissions trading market has been unofficially born – and the all-important carbon price has started at $19 a tonne.
    Energy giant AGL has sold banking giant Westpac 10,000 tonnes of “permits to pollute”.

    The Australian, Cathy Alexander, May 20, 2008.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23730759-12377,00.html

  24. If the number of scientists doesn’t indicate credibility, then that argument works both ways. It indicates that they AGW ‘consensus’ has no more credibility than the opposing view.

    Science is about falsification. The current AGW debate seems to be about special pleading to protect the hypothesis from falsification.

    Karl Popper must be spinning in his grave.

  25. We are approaching an interregnum period in the Enviros attempt to convince Americans that they are guilty -at least guilty of something. The AGW offensive hit its peak a few years ago. Since Nature hasn’t quite cooperated recently the noise level has decreased, but that doesn’t mean the Enviros have been idle. They scored a big victory last week with the polar bears, and all 3 presidential candidates vow to “do something” about global warming (it would be nice if a reporter asked any of the 3 candidates how they are going to mitigate something that hasn’t occured for a decade?).

    The problem is that the Enviros constantly move the goal posts. It doesn’t matter if 3 million scientists say that AGW theory is wrong if the Enviros change thier sides from Global Warming to Global Cooling or Global Drought or Global Earthquakes, or Global Floods. My bet is they will stay with Climate Change because it is so loosely defined and can be used to meet any short term change in weather patterns or events. In the mean time, they are re-calibrating thier message. Even Real Climate has backed off thier postings -they use to post a new study or topic once a day. Now it’s once every few weeks.

  26. Interesting abstract that surfaced recently, which is actually quite old.

    “CO2 in Natural Ice

    By Stauffer, B & Berner, W

    Natural ice contains approximately 100 ppm (by weight) of enclosed air. This air is mainly located in bubbles. Carbon dioxide is an exception. The fraction of CO2 present in bubbles was estimated to be only about 20%. The remaining part is dissolved in the ice. Measurements of the CO2 content of ice samples from temperate and cold glacier ice as well as of freshly fallen snow and of a laboratory-grown single crystal were presented. It is probable that a local equilibrium is reached between the CO2 dissolved in the ice and the CO2 of the surroundings and of the air bubbles. The CO2 content of ancient air is directly preserved neither in the total CO2 concentration nor in the CO2 concentration in the bubbles. Possibly the CO2 content of ancient air may at least be estimated if the solubility and the diffusion constant of CO2 in ice are known as a function of temperature. (See also W79-09342) (Humphreys-ISWS)

    (From: Symposium on the Physics and Chemistry of Ice; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Cambridge (England) September 12-16, 1977. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 21, No. 85, p 291-300, 1978. 3 fig, 5 tab, 18 ref.)”

    This was picked up from Greenie Watch, but look at when it was first published. I wonder if the ice core people are aware of this report and whether it has been subsequently verified. Anyone who is in the business should be able to repeat this experiment. If it proves to be accurate, then all bets are off, insofar as paleo CO2 levels go.

  27. I am sure no warmer will take this list seriously, Earlier when it was at 19,000 and 90% verified they bragged about sneaking a false name onto the list. If your willing to lie about other things why not put fake names on your opponenets petition and then use the fake to bludgeon him. Perfectly reasonable to a dishonest person with a political agenda.

    The 90+% legitimate ones can than be pointedly ignored in their way of thinking.

    While lists like this don’t prove anything, this list has one advantage over the supposed list of 2500 “scientists” claimed by the IPCC. The signers of the petition actually agreed with what it said. This is not the case with the IPCC report, even if your contribution or comment was to tell them they were wrong you still count on their list of supporting experts.

  28. Anthony,
    Thanks for the info on Freeman Dyson. He was quite a self made man. It seems that his accomplishments fly in the face of some of the contentions that you have to be an expert in the field to be considered as having a viable opinion. I believe that he would have been one of the people I would prefer to listen to. Looks to me like he is a thinker. We need more of them.

    Bill Derryberry

  29. Actually, the lists and arguments pale in comparison to Mother Nature shaking her finger at our impudent beliefs that she is powerless compared to humans. The weather here in Wallowa County (snow in the mountains, just above freezing on the valley floor) reminds me of my grandmother giving me a righteous whipping with a willow branch cause I talked back. Gawd-a’mighty, is it gonna snow all summer???????

  30. BCL criticizes the argument to authority, poor thing. The point is that the high tide of CO2 foolishness is now ebbing and great numbers of all sorts of people are changing their minds about global warming, now that the earth cools.
    ============================================

  31. No One at 18:48 5/19, note he’d no PhD. Found no need, I guess.
    ===============================

  32. Ric Werme says:
    “A lot of scientists can be wrong – have been wrong. No matter how you set up the list, some of the scientists are likely to know less than many non-scientists running around.”

    The trouble is the warmers have successfully created the illusion that the ‘science is settled’ and that only a ‘few cranks on the payroll of oil companies’ dispute their claims. This kind of list demonstrates that those arguments are bogus. In turn, this list will make it more difficult for alarmists to avoid dealing with the substance of the science (although I am sure they will come up with other excuses to avoid discussing the science).

  33. Freeman Dyson is an excellent example of someone demonstrating the futility of credentialism as a guide to policy in our society.

    Sure he didn’t have a major degree in science, but certainly his contributions to science, particularly the development of models of reality, are unquestioned. There were no degrees in many of the areas of his expertise because he invented those areas.

    His analysis of the formulations of quantum mechanics demonstrates his authority on modeling. Essentially, these formulations are mathematical models of a part of the universe. Different from climate models in that these are based on experimental observations.

    He picked up on the weaknesses of GCMs when he brought up the subject of fudge factors in the models, as well as the inability to accurately model cloud formation, dust, impact of biological systems, etc. These models are only as good as mankind’s understanding of the underlying processes of weather.

    Quite frankly, Freeman Dyson’s opinions carry more weight than thousands of the signatories of any list; to say nothing of opinion polls of any other group. Why? Because he understands the limitations of the computer models and candidly points these out. No need to trot out a list of people disagreeing with him, just overcome his objections.

    But the climate will do what it will do, no matter what we have to say about it. Right now, it looks like its cooling, which disproves the AGW hypothesis.

    Eppure, si rinfresca

    Jack Simmons

  34. Yes, the lists are rather lame and childish, “but they started it” ;-)

    By throwing down the concensus gauntlet, and calling us “flat-earth, fringe, lunatics”, they force us to play that game. It won’t be long before the climate takes the edge off the AGW agenda. I haven’t heard the “tipping point” threat for at least a month now. As long as we keep getting good data from the satellites and oceans, the hot air keeping the AGW balloon afloat, is radiating quietly out into space.

  35. People like bigcitylib who falsely put their names on this list, in order to then turn around and complain how worthless it is, reminds me of the parable of the person who murders their parents and then pleads for sympathy because they are an orphan

  36. Ric, when it comes to politics, “my list is bigger than their list” always works. If nothing else, the lists are counter arguments to the 2500 “scientists” on the IPCC list.

  37. Frankly, whether you believe in human influenced global warming or not, surely, unless you have no common sense and a willfull disregard for your own safety, you should be able to realise that using something again (so you don’t have to buy a new one) and not being entirely dependant on a substance coming from one of the most politically unstable regions in the world is probably a good idea? and even if we aren’t the cause, if the ice caps are melting, and thousands of species risk extinction, and megastorms are a-brewin’, then maybe we should try to do some damage limitation anyway? Whatever you believe the cause is, it’s getting hotter, and we are in big trouble.

    REPLY: Please someone help this man, I’m out of lfe preservers at the moment.

  38. My Governor can beat up your Governor – oh wait that doesn’t work because my governor has his head in the sand.
    I posted the OISM list on the Bee website. 60 comments and growing.
    Let the MSM boycott it if they dare.

    BTW Lubos Motl has the alarmist counterpart to the OISM list posted on his blog.
    You should compare the names before placing wagers on whose daddy can beat up whom.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/31072-american-scientists-against-agw.html

  39. Um, Malcolm, science is not “about falsification.” Science is a method of understanding the world through a method of investigation, cross-checking, and verification. The problems of consensus come about through things like this petition, where scientists, who are not knowledgeable about a particular field, nevertheless claim an opinion on the subject of that field. Sometimes, even within a particular field, a crop of scientists can be wrong. Eventually, the truth comes out, or a new idea is presented and accepted. It’s a continuous process. It is obvious that many people who weigh in on climate change are directly influenced by politics, not scientific inquiry. Among those who seriously research this subject, acquiring data, investigating it, comparing it, testing climate models, etc, there is a consensus that global warming is happening, and that human activity contributes to it, regardless of the overall effect. Some of that activity involves factories in China, an overpopulation of oil burning vehicles, and an unusual reliance on cows for protein. It is fashionable among those who benefit directly or indirectly from these activities to claim that 1.) there is no such thing as climate change; or 2.) human activity does not affect climate or environmental degradation. These are the same types of people who used to claim thalidomide and mercury are harmless, and all birth defects and nerve damage after such exposure are natural occurrences. These are the same type of people who claimed that Earth was the center of the universe about which the Sun and planets revolved, and that stars were placed in the “heavens” for our pleasure by an all-powerful being, not that the stars were also suns and planets and galaxies, and nebula, etc. Scientists often make mistakes, but eventually all such mistakes are recognized, and corrected, or the tools used to observe and analyze are replaced, updated, or newly invented. Climate change is occurring, so we need to prepare for some of the effects, instead of denying the very possibility.

  40. Question: How large are the Cayman Island bank accounts of “organizations” like Icecap who have an open flow of money coming in from “Big Energy”? Record profits just don’t sit around doing nothing. If your profit could be decreased by X dollars because of some factor, wouldn’t you spend Y % of X to assure you don’t lose all of X? It’s just a matter of determining how much of X “Big Energy” is willing to spend.

    If “CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGNS SPEND $912 MILLION THROUGH LATE NOVEMBER” in the 2006 elections and we know how much they saturated the media airwaves, we can compare that to the amount of “Big Energy” commercials we see on TV and then think of the quarterly profits we hear about for Big Oil, $11.7 billion in quarterly profit for Exxon Mobil last quarter. Where is the rest of that money going as a mere 10% by one company alone could overspend the advertisement soaked 2006 airwaves?

  41. Yes, the lists are rather lame and childish, “but they started it” ;-)

    By throwing down the concensus gauntlet, and calling us “flat-earth, fringe, lunatics”, they force us to play that game.

    In fact, I agree. This is an issue of policy as well as science.

    (While acknowledging , as always, that it can take only one scientist to turn a consensus on its head.)

  42. JS

    Funny, Barry Bruce-Briggs (one of the OLD Hudson Institute crew in its glory, when it was under Herman Kahn) had exactly the same criticism of the models. You may recall that the Old HI used to construct not a few demographic models of their own to predict the future (economics, poplation, demographics)–and that they nearly always were eerily accurate.

  43. What would be sort of interesting would be to find out of Esther Dyson agrees or disagrees with her dad.

  44. The high priest of global warming, Al Gore, has said many times that there are very few scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming. That’s a big part of his pitch to take action on warming now. Al says the debate is over.

    This petition demonstrates that Al is flat out wrong. There are many scientists who dispute AGW, and the debate is far from over.

    BTW I’m still waiting for the list of scientists who do support the AGW theory.

  45. borealdreams (14:06:15) :
    “Question: How large are the Cayman Island bank accounts of “organizations” like Icecap who have an open flow of money coming in from “Big Energy”?”

    From my sense of meeting Joe D’Aleo a few times, I suspect the Cayman bank accounts don’t exist and that the balance in the local bank accounts is not much. OTOH, I haven’t asked.

    If anything, my impression is that the “skeptics” have a lot less money and income than the AGW folks with a steady stream of research money. Which isn’t enough for them to open a Cayman bank account. Except maybe for Al Gore, though apparently most of his recent income before his movie is from investing in Google.

    A lot of pure science doesn’t pay all that well. Scientists tend to get distracted with learning how the world works. Without that reward, I suspect more scientists would join private industry.

  46. BigCityLib,

    How about posting your name so we can check the list and see if you really made it!! 8>)

    Too much talk, and not enough action…

    Of course, since you spent ZERO (0) time checking it out or actually trying to get on the list. You have not realised that they are actually making an enormous effort to AUDIT the signatures they receive!! Like their first list, there will be a low error rate.

    Al Gore and the other people who claimed the science was settled and the consensus was behind the IPCC should get used to being called LIARS!!

    Here is a link to the full list of names:

    http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

    They have Dr. Teller’s petition there!!

  47. I hear they pay very, very well over at the “Creationist” Society! The “science” coming out of there is amazing. I hear they’e about a nanosecond away from the breakthrough on how Noah got 2 of every animal & plant specied on Earth into the Ark.

    ps, scientists tend to get really distracted when their research findings are edited by 20 year old college Republicans with a degree in Theology too, but hey who’s keeping track.

  48. Ric Werme,

    As has been mentioned by others, the idea of this list is to prevent the DIALOGUE from being CUT OFF!! The warmers keep telling us the consensus has spoken, “everyone agrees”, the science is settled…

    Everyone most assuredly DOES NOT AGREE even within the 2 VERY LOOSELY ALIGNED camps. There are many people in between and outside…

    We need more research and less censorship!!! We also need gubmint to do what it is best at. NOTHING!!!!!!

  49. Evan,

    Your comments certainly stirred some old memories.

    I remember when the Club of Rome reports were all the rage. I had to get a copy and read it as soon as I could. It was quite terrifying to see what was going to happen, IF CURRENT TRENDS CONTINUED. At the time oil prices were going through the roof and it appeared there would be no stopping it.

    Of course, current trends can change. In fact, you can count on it. Real talent lies in detecting the changes in the trends.

    Barry Bruce-Briggs co-authored Things to come; thinking about the seventies and eighties with Kahn. I didn’t know about the book until a lot of what they projected had already occurred. It was very impressive, or as you put it, eerily accurate.

    Do you know where I could obtain a copy of Bruce-Briggs review of these models?

    Eppure, si rinfresca

  50. borealdreams: ‘Question: How large are the Cayman Island bank accounts of “organizations” like Icecap who have an open flow of money coming in from “Big Energy”? Record profits just don’t sit around doing nothing.’ If we are trading in conspiracy and contaminated motivations, then presumably you are quite comfortable (and perhaps enthusiatic, depending on your investment portfolio) about the role of Enron in lobbying for carbon trading – megabucks? ain’t seen nothing yet, see here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813229/posts. You must be one of those smartest guys in the room. Just google Enron Kyoto.. those profits aren’t sitting around.

  51. O’Maolchathaigh:

    “problems of consensus come about through things like this petition, where scientists, who are not knowledgeable about a particular field, nevertheless claim an opinion on the subject of that field.”

    Like ‘Climate Scientists’ offering up rudimentary derivations involving physical phenomena cast interms of artithmetic and emotive prose.

    Yours is the mere appearance of wisdom, dismissing crucial elements of a process with an obfuscational description of the process. Either give us rigor or get along to your next pint.

  52. i think this is in order ;) but too tired to read through it all.

    Sulfur cap & trade to the best of my knowledge worked and allowed the market to meet the goals set out for reduction while doing it in the most cost effective manner possible. Had it not worked, the entire Northeast USA & large swaths of Europe would look like the areas around Sudbury, Ontario [looked for an image, but found some crap saying Hummers were more environmentally friendly than a prius?!] from the acid rain that was rampant some decades ago.

    That is odd, if Kennyboy was involved in Koyto from the backside, why would GWB & Republicans have fought it so much? I have no problem with a cap & trade system, I wish it would come about, b/c even then there would need to be a adjusted scale price car owners would have to pay dependent upon average output for their model car & how many miles they drove. let the market drive it, there is so much money in “green” related industries, yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.

    the market is gonna drive the SUVs out of existence here real soon with $4 and rising gas prices. I guess America’s Holiday of cheap gas is finally over.

  53. It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.

    Then let me give you an explanation not involving complete arrogance and disregard.

    A demographer would decry the ignored effect of economic impact on China and India, whose children and grandchildren would be denied the affluence that we in the west take for granted. This would result in a needless continuation many, many millions of deaths due to the greatest killer of all: poverty.

    If carbon emissions have the effect the IPCC claims it will have, there might be cause for such a terrible sacrifice on the part of the developing nations. But the Aqua Satellite indicates that the CO2/water vapor positive feedback equation of the IPCC is completely in error, and that instead there is negative feedback and homeostasis.

    This explains why temperatures have been declining over the past decade despite the fact that the NOA, AO, AMO, and PDO cycles have all been simultaneously in a warm phase. Now that PDO has flipped to a cooling phase (with the other cycles soon to follow), we can expect a worldwide cooling trend, possibly for the next three decades.

    This gives us time for further study and vast economic expansion. If there does turn out to be a problem, after all, we will be far better equipped in terms of both wealth and technology to deal with it then.

    Bear in mind that even if we in the west comply with cap/trade and the third and fourth world do not, the impact of the “wealth never created” will still be felt mainly in the poorer countries. (Call it “negative-economic positive feedback”.) Look, for example, at the humanitarian and environmental havoc brought about by the biofuels “experiment”.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, for every $billion wasted (or not created), babies starve. It is therefore morally imperative to have a considerable degree of certainty before making such sacrifices. Not to do so would be an act of supreme arrogance and callous disregard.

  54. “It is therefore morally imperative to have a considerable degree of certainty before making such sacrifices.”

    Hear, hear!

  55. RE: Ric Werme (20:26:43) :

    Plus, the regions and demographics that feature the highest percentage of hard core environmentalists tend to align pretty well with ones, to use nomenclature from “The Clustering of America,” such as “Urban Gold Coast” and “Money, Brains and Power.” So, de facto, skeptics, who are somewhat more likely to hail from more “middle class” regions / demographics are also more likely to have a slightly lower mean income than AGW “true believers.”

    To do a spot check, it would be interesting to compare the 10 most wealthy US zip codes with 10 randomly selected from the mid range of wealth, vis a vis AGW belief fervor.

  56. @stevesadlov
    Since when has it been considered bad to be college educated? That is exactly what you are implying, and that is exactly what the media is implying lately with the importance of “working/middle class” people who feel the pains of the current economic situation, in opposition, “they/you argue” to those “elite” [read:who have a college degree] who somehow have a golden ATM stuck up their butts that shoots out money and exempts them from the need to work. and thanks for stating as “factual” by example that ignorance is justified simply for being poor!

    let me turn this around on you and state as “fact” by example as you do: If we were to take a map of religious density and overlaid it on the map of those that do not believe in GW, we would find a relationship showing the more religious an area is the higher the average of “GW skeptics” there are.

    if we next set down another layer of mean incomes, the 10 poorest areas of the US, we would find the lower the mean income the greater the density of religious believers and higher density of GW skeptics.

    If you believe your’s to be true and accurate, then my example is therefore true and accurate as well. would you like to “reformulate” theory?

    @ EV
    now green technologies are responsible for people starving?! and we need “absolute certainty” before we do absolutely anything at all? By this logic [off topic but within the fundamental beliefs of those skeptical of GW] we need to have a Missle Defense System [star wars] to protect us from threats of the future, yet we don’t have “absolute certainty” in how to make it work and by relational “fact making” laid down by you developing Star Wars is starving people “so [to do it] would be an act of supreme arrogance and callous disregard” if I follow your reasoning.

    why is this you guys? anything else you want your way and will spin in “intelligently articulated” arguments and therefore make it factual and indisputably correct because you “crafted it with fancy words.”

    when will you propose that Nuclear Power plants need be build in the midwest US, to power the increasing energy demands of drawing water from deeper and deeper in the ground as water table [aquifers] drop? When will you propose a nuclear plant needs to be built for every 3 other nuclear plants built, to supply the energy needed to just draw up water for cooling the other 3 plants?

    Also, so this latest “decade of highest recorded mean temperatures” is the high point of a sine wave and will now start on a downhill trend? Yep and northern polar ice sheets “grew at their fastest rates” this past year too, correct? And please dismiss in the weeks following September 11th, there was a slight recorded ambient air temperature average, that was later attributed to a moratorium on commercial flight, and no contrails in the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation back into towards the earth, aka Global Heating, aka CO2/Water vapor feedback loop.

    do you guys understand the concept, and I know that you do as you are claiming it of those who studying GW and arrive at results verifying it, that garbage in equals garbage out? just post your “fact” inlaid “intelligently” crafted theories, and rest assured your “people of lower economic status” will believe what you say because you say it. Oddly, I just don’t understand how your “education derived” intelligence is of the common man, in stark contrast to the “elitism” of college education from “liberal” bastions of eastern “golden coasts” universities.

    I love the degree to which you all spend justifying your beliefs as factual to 100% certainty, while categorically dismissing GW theory because it is on too great of a scale of inputing factors to nail down with anything short of a 100% agreement of all studied impacts.

    The complexity of, and how elaborate th lie is, does not turn the lie into a truth, no matter how many times it is recited.

  57. Yeah, I agree with a bit of what the poster above said. I don’t yet have an opinion on this subject but I see religious zeal on both ends. This issue attracts political fundamentalists.

    In particular the lists smack of creationism. One of the list makers is of course James Inhofe who is a young earth creationist himself and likely familiar with the tactics of creationism. He has his own list of 400. Nutty lists filled with either quoted mined comments, “skeptics”, people with non-related degrees, etc. They use a variety of such lists. Even carefully worded declarations that might convince a supporter of evolution to sign. All sorts of tricks can and have been used with lists.

    I think that global warming skepticism attracts creationists because they have common cause as conservatives to oppose what they see as liberal views. Which is not to say that all skeptics are creationists but I think there is probably a correlation on the other end. To the biblically minded any effort that they believe undermines science, supports the bible.

  58. I hear they’e about a nanosecond away from the breakthrough on how Noah got 2 of every animal & plant specied on Earth into the Ark.

    Well, maybe Dr. Noah was a classification “lumper”, not a “splitter”. (And he probably had an ark of holding. )

    Besides, both factions have their distaff side. But even if one invests one’s beliefs in the Great Pumpkin doesn’t (necessarily) mean one is wrong on any other given subject.

    And not a few liberal atheists are getting pretty skeptical about AGW, these frosty days! We look at the statistics and notice that it has been cooling for a decade, you see. Even with the PDO, AMO, NOA, and AO simultaneously blasting away in their warm phases and a 4% increase in CO2.

    On top of that, the AquaSat has shot down the CO2 positive feedback theory and the ArgoBots show ocean cooling.

    Given all that, a continuing belief in AGW would seem to require something of a leap of faith. (But far be it from me to question a man’s religion. Believe what you will, my dear fellow! )

    When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? — Keynes

  59. Since when has it been considered bad to be college educated?

    It has its ups and downs. It encourages an abandonment of a certain degree of common sense. Both the elite and the sloggers have their positive aspects and their shortcomings. Some of us grads attempt to combine the knowledge of the former and some of the wisdom of the latter.

    I would say that perhaps the greatest strength and weakness of higher education (and higher IQs) is a strong, almost erotic tendency to the counterintuitive. I never met a grad student who didn’t in his heart of hearts want to believe up is down and 2+2=5. One the one hand, it does get a man out of the box. On the other hand, once out of the box, one can go a little, well, funny in the head . . .

    (As for me I took my MA in Ashamed of American History from Columbia, so, yes, I got an earful. I jumped ship after that and joined the proles.)

  60. Also, so this latest “decade of highest recorded mean temperatures” is the high point of a sine wave and will now start on a downhill trend?

    Well 1998 was a big El Niño year. but was followed by a honking big La Niña, which balances out the trendline. If you skip ahead to 2001, you get the same negative trend. In fact, after 2001, we have had three El Niño events ( 5/02-3/03, 7/04-2/05, 8/06-1/07 ) and only one La Niña (starting last year).

    Given all that plus a PDO flip, it is reasonable to predict a continued cooling for quite some time. (Not to mention Solar Cycle 24 having gone AWOL.)

    I love the degree to which you all spend justifying your beliefs as factual to 100% certainty, while categorically dismissing GW theory because it is on too great of a scale of inputing factors to nail down with anything short of a 100% agreement of all studied impacts.

    I don’t consider the skeptical view to be 100% certain or even 100% true. But I seriously doubt AGW theory for a number of reasons both theoretical and observational.

    Let us say that our degree of doubt is roughly equal to the degree of certainty entertained by the other side . . .

    now green technologies are responsible for people starving?!

    Yes. Rather directly, in the case of biofuels. There is also the indirect effect of loss of wealth and lower economic growth.

    and we need “absolute certainty” before we do absolutely anything at all?

    No, a “considerable” degree of certainty would be quite sufficient. I am not against anything that does not harm the economy. And I don’t think that “anything at all” harms the economy. And yes, I’m pro-nuke. I’m pro anything THAT WORKS. And yes, I’m willing to “have one in my back yard”.

    But consider that if we “do nothing”, both wealth and wealth-driven technology will advance very quickly. This will leave us in a far more able position to deal with AGW if it actually does turn out to be a problem.

    I don’t think there is enough evidence for drastic action, and furthermore, I seriously doubt the efficacy of the drastic action thus far proposed. And I–greatly–fear the unintended consequences thereof (the poor, as usual, will bear the brunt of the suffering).

    Kyoto, for example, will hardly affect world climate one whit and would be very costly, not only in terms of expenditure, but (mostly) in terms of growth. The latter of which never seems to wind up on the red ink side of the ledger (but should).

    In short, stipulating that AGW is indeed the serious problem the IPCC et al say it is, we cannot “dodge” it. But we can “outrun” it.

  61. Of course, current trends can change. In fact, you can count on it. Real talent lies in detecting the changes in the trends.

    Herman Kahn found an S-curve to be quite efficacious. (He got a lot of good mileage out of S-curves.)

    Barry Bruce-Briggs co-authored Things to come; thinking about the seventies and eighties with Kahn. I didn’t know about the book until a lot of what they projected had already occurred. It was very impressive, or as you put it, eerily accurate.

    Indeed he did. He’s quite a character, and still hanging in there. It’s great to encounter a body who remembers that great old crew. (I recently had the privilege of writing the intro to the new edition of Kahn’s On Thermonuclear War. )

    Do you know where I could obtain a copy of Bruce-Briggs review of these models?

    Har-har, I’m it! Sorry, ’bout that.

    I quizzed him about it last Thanksgiving as we sat on my cousin’s porch in New Jersey, swilling seriously spiked Fish-House Punch and talking about God and the world. (With a heavy dose of economics, statistics, and military history.)

    FWIW, he was considerably down on the models and said they couldn’t possibly predict anything as complex as climate and were taking far too few things into consideration in any event.

    I’m afraid you’ll just have to take my word for it . . .

    Eppure, si rinfresca

    “Cool is the rule.”

  62. Hans
    “yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. It really makes zero sense to me other than a complete arrogance of their impact on the world and a complete disregard to how their actions will effect their children & grandchildren.”
    “yet so many fight GW theory tooth and nail. ” Because the theory that CO2 drives the climate is wrong and I will figth against any type of CO2 cap and trade or CO2 tax. And I am thinking of my children and grandchildren.
    If you are going to line your pockets through CO2 cap and trade, then you are selfish and a hypocrite.
    NCPA study about the IPCC
    “The Data Are Unreliable. Temperature data is highly variable over time and space. Local proxy data of uncertain accuracy (such as ice cores and tree rings) must be used to infer past global temperatures. Even over the period during which thermometer data have been available, readings are not evenly spread across the globe and are often subject to local warming from increasing urbanization. As a consequence, the trend over time can be rising, falling or stable depending on the data sample chosen.

    The Forecasting Models Are Unreliable.Complex forecasting methods are only accurate when there is little uncertainty about the data and the situation (in this case: how the climate system works), and causal variables can be forecast accurately. These conditions do not apply to climate forecasting. For example, a simple model that projected the effects of Pacific Ocean currents (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) by extrapolating past data into the future made more accurate three-month forecasts than 11 complex models. Every model performed poorly when forecasting further ahead.

    The Forecasters Themselves Are Unreliable. Political considerations influence all stages of the IPCC process. For example, chapter by chapter drafts of the Fourth Assessment Report “Summary for Policymakers” were released months in advance of the full report, and the final version of the report was expressly written to reflect the language negotiated by political appointees to the IPCC. The conclusion of the audit is that there is no scientific forecast supporting the widespread belief in dangerous human-caused “global warming.” In fact, it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible.”

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308

    Informs study about the polar bear
    “The authors examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports. The studies include “Forecasting the Wide-Range Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century” by Steven C. Amstrup et. al. and “Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and Population Growth in Relation to Sea Ice Conditions” by Christine M. Hunter et al.

    Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.

    Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.

    Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.

    The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.”

    http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383

  63. I agree with the ones who say that voting has no place in science.

    Nevertheless, all us scientists have accepted the peer review method as the least painful one of separating wheat from chaff. In publications there are usually several where a given paper could be submitted, so if rejected by one it could appear in another one.

    The AGW crowd is making a lot of fuss about “peer review” shutting their eyes to articles and links if they are not “peer reviewed”. A mantra.

    This petition is accompanied by a lucid review of why CO2 is not the culprit of the observed warming. The 9000 phds who have signed the petition are peers and also referees of this review in all senses of the word: they would not have signed it if they thought the contents unsound/unproven rigorously.

    The report is peer reviewed par excellence.

    Thus a good use of this petition for the scientific community is to display the folly of this “peer review” mantra taken up by the hoi polloi of AGW.

  64. Anna, I am not a scientist, just a lousy Liberal Arts person, so I don’t qualify. But what about you? Have you signed on yet?

  65. So the only “certainty” you would accept is the “certainty” that nothing needs to be done now?!

    i have no interest in the cap & trade market, I also have no investments whatsoever, you the hypocracy charge is without merit ;)

    so next tell me, that methane has no effect on global temperatures. that methane release from melting permafrost in the arctic areas will not cause problems and will not feed a positive feedback loop to release even more methane locked in the air. tell me that rising ocean temps, will not effect the methane hydrate locked deep in ocean, that is locked in place by a delicate balance of both pressure & temperature. tell me great swaths of forests are not dying because as the areas have milder winters and drier summers, cambium eating beetles face less and less defenses mounted from the the tree’s inability to produce sap is not occurring because of Global Warming or Global Climate change. Tell me there is not renewed excitement of the mythical NW Passage becoming open year round, decreasing trans-global shipping distances. Tell me, China’s 1 a week opening of a new coal fired power plant will do nothing to the Earth’s atmospheric balance. Tell me, increased CO2 in the air is not being absorbed by sea water in higher levels, resulting in higher levels of carbonic acid the result of CO2 merging with H2O, that is having a drastic impact on most “hard shelled” oceanic life’s ability to make its protective layer. Tell me, the increasing influx of more dense fresh water coming off the ice caps, ice sheets & ocean contacting glaciers will not have any impact on the global thermohaline currents. Tell me again, waste barrels of 100,000 year half-life radioactive waste dumped at sea decades ago is safe now b/c “dilution is the solution to the polution”. Tell me again, all the nuclear waste at locations like Hanford, that has already breached the underground containment tanks and has entered the groundwater and into the Columbia River is safe?

    Yes please tell me you do not have enough “certainty,” oh I mean 100% certainty that these will not cause any effects whatsoever because no less than 1 trillion different scenarios have been played out to prove that there is any concern to be had.

    Once you can answer that there is no concern for any of the above, let alone all of them in unison, then I will not consider you an arrogant man only concerned about yourself and your short remaining years on this planet and putting enough money into your pocket so you can do whatever you want with no concern whatsoever for you actions. You do not care about your children and you children’s children, you are self absorbed and arrogant. I don’t need your acronyms to prove some point you have yet to prove, to know you carry water for some ulterior motive and that motive usually if not always leads back to money, money in your pocket, screw the rest of the world and your children!

    enjoy your life, f*** the rest right?!

  66. Pingback: Comment on The 31000 who say “no convincing evidence” for human … | Construction Materials

  67. Oy. This article brought out the agw hystericysts didn’t it?

    They must be getting desperate to silence us.

  68. evan Jones 23:03:22

    I am not a US citizen and my phd is from europe. I have signed the Manhattan one, though.

  69. I signed the Oregon Petition. It doesn’t take a specialist in “Climate Science” to see that the ipcc, enc., is not operating scientifically.

  70. So the only “certainty” you would accept is the “certainty” that nothing needs to be done now?!

    At this point, I would not be willing to take any steps that harmed the economy in any significant way. If better evidence for AGW makes its appearance that would change things. But all the recent satellite, buoy, and observational evidence has, so far, been pointing in the opposite direction.

    so next tell me, that methane has no effect on global temperatures. that methane release from melting permafrost in the arctic areas will not cause problems and will not feed a positive feedback loop to release even more methane locked in the air. tell me that rising ocean temps, will not effect the methane hydrate locked deep in ocean, that is locked in place by a delicate balance of both pressure & temperature.

    Methane is 0.4% of overall greenhouse effect, 7.1% if one excludes water vapor. Of the “Big Four” greenhouse gasses, CH4 has the least effect.

    Furthermore, methane increase, unlike that of CO2, has stabilized over the last decade and there has been almost no increase. So the evidence completely contradicts fears of a positive feedback CH4 loop.

    Methyl hydrate is down “where the sun never shines”. Ocean temperatures are unaffected at those depths regardless of the warm/cool phases of the upper layers.

    Besides, the upper oceans are cooling after a long “warm run” from PDO, AMO, NOA, and AA simultaneous warm phases.

    So I think your methane fears are hugely exaggerated.

    tell me great swaths of forests are not dying because as the areas have milder winters and drier summers, cambium eating beetles face less and less defenses mounted from the the tree’s inability to produce sap is not occurring because of Global Warming or Global Climate change.

    I don’t know much about forestation (except that in the US there are around a third more trees than a hundred years ago). I take it you are referring to northern conifers? There is no question that even as the world cools, there are some areas, particularly in the northern hemisphere, that have been warming, and that any change at all has effects on trees and their denizens. But this is not necessarily an unnatural event.

    Tell me there is not renewed excitement of the mythical NW Passage becoming open year round, decreasing trans-global shipping distances.

    It isn’t. It opened up briefly last year, but has frozen shut since. It is also quite possible that this occurred in the 1930’s, but, as we had no satellites, it went unobserved.

    Tell me, China’s 1 a week opening of a new coal fired power plant will do nothing to the Earth’s atmospheric balance.

    There is a “brown cloud” over southeastern Asia as China and India develop. It will continue for a couple of decades. At that point, they will have achieved western-style affluence and they will clean up their air, water, etc., same as the west did, and for the same reasons. Don’t expect this to happen until they achieve a level when poverty is less deadly than the rate of pollution.

    The main climate effect may be “dirty snow”, which NASA has said has contributed up to 25% to the rise in temperatures since 1980. That is much easier and cheaper to clean up than it is to eliminate CO2.

    Regardless, in a couple of decades, China will be far more affluent and will either burn coal clean or even wean itself off coal. The “1-a-week” situation is a mere blip, not a permanent state of affairs.

    But unless they do what they are doing, they will never achieve that affluence and will never clean up their environment.

    You are thinking linearly. You need to think like a demographer. Linearity simply does not apply here.

    Tell me, increased CO2 in the air is not being absorbed by sea water in higher levels, resulting in higher levels of carbonic acid the result of CO2 merging with H2O, that is having a drastic impact on most “hard shelled” oceanic life’s ability to make its protective layer.

    Considering the Ocean contains c. 38,000 Bil. Metric Tons Carbon and the Atmosphere contains c. 750 BMTC and that the oceans have only been absorbing only around 2 BMTC per year from industry, it would seem contrary to the evidence to draw such a connection. There has been a very slight decline (hardly measurable) in terms of Ph. It should also be noted that carbonic acid is one of the most mild known acids.

    The oceans when corals evolved were much more acidic (less basic?) than today, and have seen greater fluctuations in the past than the present. I don’t think the shellfish are heading for extinction. (At least the price of clams is holding steady.)

    Tell me, the increasing influx of more dense fresh water coming off the ice caps, ice sheets & ocean contacting glaciers will not have any impact on the global thermohaline currents.

    Of course it will. And does. And always has. That’s what causes the great multidecadal oscillations (the AMO and PDO) that are probably the main immediate drivers of world climate. And yes, every time the currents flip from cold to warm and vice-versa, there is “impact”.

    Tell me again, waste barrels of 100,000 year half-life radioactive waste dumped at sea decades ago is safe now b/c “dilution is the solution to the polution”. Tell me again, all the nuclear waste at locations like Hanford, that has already breached the underground containment tanks and has entered the groundwater and into the Columbia River is safe?

    I am all in favor of proper disposal (and recycling when possible) of nuclear waste. All in all, the cost of cleaning up properly after nukes (and the waste can often be recycled into new fuel), is minuscule compared with the costs of cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

    Many greens have come to favor nuclear power, for obvious reasons. And, of course, France does a fine job of it.

    It is cutting CO2 that I object to, not other (much cheaper and more effective) forms of cleanup.

    Yes please tell me you do not have enough “certainty,” oh I mean 100% certainty that these will not cause any effects whatsoever because no less than 1 trillion different scenarios have been played out to prove that there is any concern to be had.

    Considering recent climate trends and considering the compelling evidence from the Aqua Satellite that CO2 positive feedback is not occurring, and considering the trend in ocean temperatures, I will repeat and aver that we do not have anywhere near enough certainty to adopt measures that will result inevitably in mass death, shortened life expectancy, and continuing misery for over a third of the world’s population.

    Enough evidence may appear at any time. but until it does, I see no justification in taking action that will be 100% sure to result in huge numbers of deaths through a perpetuation of poverty in the developing world.

    Once you can answer that there is no concern for any of the above, let alone all of them in unison, then I will not consider you an arrogant man only concerned about yourself and your short remaining years on this planet and putting enough money into your pocket so you can do whatever you want with no concern whatsoever for you actions.

    There is always concern. And studies should continue. But it is equally thoughtless to take action without concern for the inevitable results of such action.

    You do not care about your children and you children’s children, you are self absorbed and arrogant. I don’t need your acronyms to prove some point you have yet to prove, to know you carry water for some ulterior motive and that motive usually if not always leads back to money, money in your pocket, screw the rest of the world and your children!

    You presume a great deal. And you should check out some of them there acronyms.

    As for “money in my pocket” I live in a slum and make do on well under a thousand dollars a month. I have no car, no savings, and and my “carbon footprint” is, on the whole, negligible. My computer is the better part of a decade old, and my great luxury is slow-speed internet. (I can’t afford fast food.)

    Yet I immensely enjoy life and hope to improve my circumstances. And I certainly am not lamebrain-idiotic-stupid enough to buy the immoral, envious fantasy my lot will in ANY way be improved if the “gap between rich and poor” narrows! (c.f. the Great Depression or any other “bad times” in history.)

    When the third and fourth world are as well off as I am, we can talk. But until then, we really don’t have much to say to each other.

    enjoy your life, f*** the rest right?!

    My field is history. My ulterior motive is that I want the poorer nations of the world to shed the age-old miseries that have afflicted them throughout. I want the developed nations to achieve inconceivable wealth and power and to see that help pull up the rest of the world by its bootstraps.

    This, for the first time in all of history, is finally within our grasp. Open your eyes, man!

    And I think that if we fail do this, the environment will be far, far worse off than if we succeed.

    Speaking of the devastation of great swaths of trees, Europe was one big forest, once. But not after medieval farming was through with it. On the whole, only modern man and modern means will protect that which we ALL want to see protected. And it IS all about future generations, though you fail to credit our side of the ledger on this.

  71. One reason why this petition is great. In a snarky way. Is that Arthur Robinson fits two of the AGW denier archetypes. He is both a creationist (who really hate GW) and an anti-socalist crusader in the Robert Jastrow mold. Free market fundamentalists hate, hate, hate the idea of government intervention in anything. The other originator was a former chief medical scientist for Big Tobacco. He sought to reassure us that the whole cancer-smoking link was just unsubstatiated nonsense!

    Robinson will also sell you a range of conservative christian home-schooling kits and provided material to survive a wide range of nuclear attack scenarios.

  72. Hans, you seem to have your [snip] AGW propaganda down pat. Congratulations, but, you might want to try some actual science instead. You could start here: Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?.
    But, be forewarned: science (as opposed to your AGW psuedoscientific drivel) is addictive.

  73. you were saying something, trying to prove your point based on big numbers and fancy acronyms? this isn’t worth discussing further as your whole argument is based on the earth cooling, how you come to this with your fancy satellite images alone is beside me. the us has the above mentioned more trees in the urban areas, but not overall. if as you concede, as the world cools, some areas of the north, basically all the northern latitudes heat, all that methane trapped in the frozen permafrost that is melting is being released. the methane trapped as methane hydrate is for unknown reasons is being released off the coast of africa on regular occasions, so don’t tell me methane is being “absorbed & locked into place” when it is not the case. as to your ascertations about CO2 absorption capacity of the oceans you are not accurate or correct and the higher concentration are leading to higher carbonic acid levels & thus higher acidity levels which marginalizes the ability of hardshelled aquatic life to utilize calcium correctly to build their shells, same with corals. is article is out today, here in oregon where it is starting to have an effect on economies and the abilities to produce foodstuffs. so now what do you say to that, it is an acceptable loss of economic value?
    “brown snow” is acceptible and can be cleaned up 20 years later? sure thing, minus the reality that those particulates are traveling all the way over to Oregon and causing us increased rains during the winter season and floods have been devastating around here lately. but floods never cost any money according to you, right?
    get out of your geek mood and open your eyes. i love how you quote your numbers and acronyms with such exactness and certainty in disproving all these things you are claiming are wrong, yet everyone else’s research is garbage and not certain enough. isn’t that a little hypocritical?

    although you make it look like an intellectual conversation, its the same stupid discussion as one with a biblethumber that says marriage is an institution as old as the earth itself and as such can be used to deny rights to all people. so keep living your lie behind your numbers, keep fascinating people with your fancy letters, sat picts and exactly mega & mini numbers to make it look like you know what you are talking about. idiots will always lap them up, trying to be in with the cool kids, and right now it is cool to deny their is a problem with the balance between man’s impact on the earth and the earth’s ability to deal with it.

    but good luck to you, there are always lemmings that follow blindly, or here more likely rats to follow the piper.

  74. hmmmm_maybe on Art Robinson:

    “Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Diego, UCSD, Dr. Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973. Beginning with their initial work together on general anesthesia and the structure of water at Caltech in 1961, Pauling and Robinson carried out published research on a wide variety of topics from nuclear physics to nutrition until 1978. They ceased work together in 1978 because of a disagreement between them on the effects of ascorbic acid on the growth rate of cancer in mice.”

    So, it would have been beyond snarky had he been schooled at Iowa and gone on to teach at Columbia, provided he had avoided religious expression?

    I am overcome with a felt-need to shower.

  75. I can guarantee like everything else in the world that only time will tell. Strangely that is the one thing the AGW crowd does not want. To take the time to not only make sure that either stance, warming or cooling, is accurate. They want immediate buy-in, now, no questioning, the science is settled. I have known people like this all my life. They are commonly referred to as “used car salesmen”.

  76. Scott puts it very well.

    although you make it look like an intellectual conversation,

    What other kind of conversation would it be?

    its the same stupid discussion as one with a biblethumber that says marriage is an institution as old as the earth itself and as such can be used to deny rights to all people.

    Seeing as how I am a liberal atheist, this seems somewhat moot.

    My trouble with your neo-religion is that

    a.) evidence (so far) indicates it very probably ain’t so, and

    b.) the proper practice thereof would appear to require far too much human sacrifice to suit my particular tastes.

    YMMV.

    and right now it is cool to deny their is a problem with the balance between man’s impact on the earth and the earth’s ability to deal with it.

    Would that it were!

    But fear not. We’re working on it!

  77. All I know is that if my children were about to board an aeroplane, and the chief engineer of the plane said there was a 90% chance it would crash, I would not let my kids get on it.

    How about you?

    REPLY: Your analogy does not apply here. Global Climate Models are not airplane pilots, though many think they are “climate pilots”, which is the crux of the failure of the MSM in understanding it and promoting the results, which lead to flawed analogies like yours.

    Besides, if the airplane is the earth in your oft-repeated analogy, we are already on board.

  78. What if the engineer said EVERY flight had a 90% chance of crashing based on his computer flight model? And kept on saying it regardless of having been wrong 100% of the time? And even though a huge bunch of engineers disagreed with him, he insisted there was an almost complete consensus.

    And what if that flight is the last chopper taking off from the embassy roof in Saigon and the chances of survival aren’t so hot if they stayed behind?

    We live in a world where nothing is 100% certain–EXCEPT that for every $billion diverted (or worse, never created), babies starve. That is 100% certain: Look at the failed experiment of ethanol,which has tripled the price of grain in much of the third and fourth world. And added more carbon to the atmosphere. And directly resulted in deforestation.

    Even in a climate sense, over four times as many die from cold every year than from heat. And it’s been getting colder for a decade. Tell that to your self-appointed chief engineer.

  79. All I know is that if my children were about to board an aeroplane, and the chief engineer of the plane said there was a 90% chance it would crash, I would not let my kids get on it.

    How about you?

    REPLY: Your analogy does not apply here. Global Climate Models are not airplane pilots, though many think they are “climate pilots”, which is the crux of the failure of the MSM in understanding it and promoting the results, which lead to flawed analogies like yours.

    Besides, if the airplane is the earth in your oft-repeated analogy, we are already on board.

    The analogy is even more invalid than that. Airplanes are human-engineered objects. Earth’s climate is not. Engineers know every piece of that airplane intimately, and even then they can’t predict failure with anything like 100% certainly. The climate is something we know precious little about. Anyone who says they know what will happen even a week from now is seriously deluded.

  80. Ya, the analogy that applies to the “Global Warming Skeptics” would be as follows.

    The furniture store with the sign that says “going out of business, everything half off.” The only thing being, the signs have been up for two years and they changed the price tags to 2x the normal cost before they marked them down by half. i regular old shell game, without a bean under any of them.

    and yes the airplane analogy works. what is your bank account at now again. Big Oil & Energy must be paying you millions, as their is no value in you propagating lies like this for no reason? Either that or your a lunatic “creationist.”

    Please stop the “world is cooling” lies as they are not accurate. Have you explained all the tornadoes this year that are significantly above combined averages for past years? It must be the cool air coming off the cooling gulf coast waters mixing with the hot air you acknowledge may be happening in the northern latitudes? yeah right.

    don’t bother justifing your position with all intellectually trumped up language and acronyms as they are easy to see one is trying to lend cretibility to their statements of fact, when in reality it is nothing more than deception of the the truth. Your statements of fact reads just like the fine print of credit cards, and we all know the deception behind them.

  81. Pingback: Counting Cats in Zanzibar » Blog Archive » Climate Debate

  82. Hans (16:37:45) :

    “Have you explained all the tornadoes this year that are significantly above combined averages for past years? It must be the cool air coming off the cooling gulf coast waters mixing with the hot air you acknowledge may be happening in the northern latitudes? yeah right.”

    Uh, no. Perhaps less warm Gulf air and colder still northern air combined with air moving in different directions as you climb through the atmosphere. I don’t live in tornado alley, so I’m not as up on things as I could be. La Nina and the cold PDO certainly have an effect. The “Super Outbreak” in 1974 occurred during the last cold PDO so we may have several years of greater than average tornado activity in and area with greater population than 30 years ago.

    “don’t bother justifing your position with all intellectually trumped up language and acronyms as they are easy to see one is trying to lend cretibility to their statements of fact”

    Sorry.

    PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation, flips every 30 years or so, we’ve recently entered a cool phase. Sort of like La Nina, a shorter period of cooling in parts of the Pacific.

    justifing – alternate spelling for justifying.

    cretibility – whether or not one has a chance of having Web cret.

  83. The furniture store with the sign that says “going out of business, everything half off.” The only thing being, the signs have been up for two years and they changed the price tags to 2x the normal cost before they marked them down by half. i regular old shell game, without a bean under any of them.

    Actually that’s an excellent analogy for the warmers. We’ve been undergoing catastrophic warming (supposedly) for 30 years, yet nothing has really changed climate-wise since the 30s.

    Lol, one year of a few extra tornadoes means we’re all doomed?? What about the super tornadoes of the 70s?

  84. Not at all, as I feel surrounded by stupid people, engaging in rational ignorance within this discussion here.

    Wikipedia says,

    Stupidity is distinct from irrationality because stupidity denotes an incapability or [an]unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information.

    Wikipedia say,

    Rational ignorance is a term most often found in economics, particularly public choice theory, but also used in other disciplines which study rationality and choice, including philosophy (epistemology) and game theory.

    Ignorance about an issue is said to be “rational” when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.

    Carry on oh stupid people, there is no reason for me to comment further.

    REPLY: Thank you for showing your true colors.

  85. Have you explained all the tornadoes this year that are significantly above combined averages for past years?

    You didn’t ask. Increased tornado activity is a typical result of La Nina events.

    (You should check out the wiki entry on “ad hominem” and its place in rational debate while you’re at it.)

  86. Big Oil & Energy must be paying you millions, as their is no value in you propagating lies like this for no reason?

    Any time Big Oil wants a good shill, I’m for hire!

    YOO-HOO! (Taking off jacket and waving it about by way of frantic signaling.)

    Either that or your a lunatic “creationist.”

    In my case, only half correct. (I’m a liberal atheist.)

  87. Hans, your AGW religion is all a lie, and you’ve bought into it so totally that you no longer know the difference. Then you get all upset and call people names when they don’t go along with your religion. Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. Do yourself a favor, read some actual science for a change instead of your idiotic pseudoscientific AGW horsehockey.

  88. and your arrogance to believe you, me & 6 billion other people have no effect on this planet is completely absurd.

    a balance was reached millions of years ago between carbon dioxide & O2 in the atmosphere (CO2) & the oceans (carbonic acid). Excessive free carbon (CO2, Carbonic Acid) moved into the inert state by being locked up in living matter, that then became locking within the Earth in the form of Oil, NG, Methane Hydrate & Coal. This occurred over millions & billions of years, so that the balance was established naturally between CO2 levels in the atmosphere & oceans.

    then humans come around and in all their ingenuity begin releasing all this inert Carbon into the atmosphere, increasing its concentrations, thus throwing off the balance of carbonic acid in the oceans.

    Say modestly we have unlocked 40% of the carbon in NG and Oil so far given peak oil has most likely been reached, therefore releasing 40% of millions of years of locked carbon into the atmosphere and oceans not to mention how much Coal we have burnt and hence released this carbon into the atmosphere and oceans.

    We are tinkering with a planetary-stasis that was achieved over billions of years, and you try to label me as delusional for understanding this will have an effect on the planet, THAT WE HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PLANET, and that I should believe the lies you are spewing that releasing 40% at minimum of the planets locked-inert carbon into the atmosphere and oceans will have no effect whatsoever?!

    Cherry pick all your science you want, stop having kids and breeding more arrogance and ignorance, stop being so [snip] self centered.

    this argument that la nina is to blame and causing the “cooling” and that it is a 30 year up-swelling of the ocean depths is one of but many factors going on now. the same concept is what is being theorized is the cause in the spike of ocean acidity that is turning up on the west coast USA. the same water that is coming up now, was as you are arguing with your 3o year cycle, the same water that was near the surface and absorbed all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere back then.

    The problem being, if CO2 levels were down, it would release into the atmosphere to maintain balance again, and the buffering effect of the oceans is far greater than that of the air, so if this is true, that the oceans have been buffering the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere from years of us burning coal, oil, gas, wood, etc., then we are [snipped] b/c even if we cut down the amount of CO2 we spew out now, we have 100 years of our production saved up in the bank (ocean) ready to be withdrawn when we do lower our emissions.

    yet you are content to carry on as is, maintain the status quo b/c of your own arrogance and claim some cherry picked info disproves everything?! you are a [snipped] lunatic, if this is what you believe.

    I elaborated on my comment above and gave it a whole page “ignorance vs stupidity” on my site in your{s} honor. this discussion is a waste of my time. why not just try to “prove” gravity doesn’t exist while you at it. then at least could look forward to flying on your own. what the [snip] you gain out of your bullshit lies and disingenuous “proofs” is beyond me?

    REPLY: From your last post – I thought you didn’t need to “comment further”? The real question then is: if your position is so strong then why do you feel compelled to use the f-word four times in one post and denigrate others? If this is the true face of current liberal thinking (which seems well represented on your website) then it is sad that the hateful and denigrating views toward others you’ve demonstrated is becoming prevalent in the eco movement. The bottom line is that CO2 has not been tracking with temperature for the last 8 years, which brings AGW theory into question. If your complaint is that we should not question that at all then your comments have no place here.

  89. and your arrogance to believe you, me & 6 billion other people have no effect on this planet is completely absurd.

    We have a considerable effect on the planet. But probably only a rather mild effect on temperatures.

    then humans come around and in all their ingenuity begin releasing all this inert Carbon into the atmosphere, increasing its concentrations, thus throwing off the balance of carbonic acid in the oceans.

    The ocean stashes about 38,000 Billion Metric Tons of Carbon. The annual increase of carbon is 2 BMTC.

    CO2 increase did not become substantial until mid-century. The IPCC puts in as the 1950s. But I cannot believe it was that late; surely Wold War II with 100 cities partially or near-completely destroyed by incendiaries plus full war productions must have been the kickoff. (I don’t care what the Antarctic ice cores say.)

    So call it 60 years. Less than a third of industrial output (c. 6.5 BMTC annually) winds up in the oceans. Take the increasing scale into account and we’ve got around 100 BMTC added to the oceans since 1940. That is a minuscule percentage increase. So your claims of “throwing off the balance” simply would not seem to to add up.

    We are tinkering with a planetary-stasis that was achieved over billions of years, and you try to label me as delusional for understanding this will have an effect on the planet, THAT WE HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE PLANET, and that I should believe the lies you are spewing that releasing 40% at minimum of the planets locked-inert carbon into the atmosphere and oceans will have no effect whatsoever?!

    Actually, I think is has a mild effect. On the atmosphere, but not the ocean. (The IPCC’s alarming claims of a massive vapor-driven positive feedback, however, are simply not so. Q.E.D.)

    First, you misspoke. You mean that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 35% (not 40) from predindustrial times. Not that we have released 40% of the earth’s carbon.

    As for billions of years, we did not have much of an atmosphere at all until around a billion years ago and not enough to get the Paleozoic Era online until around 600mya. At that time, the earth’s atmosphere was around 7000 ppmv compared with today’s 385 ppmv. Carbon decreaesed to around today’s levels towards the end of the Paleozoic. But then there was a massive increase and CO2 went back up to c. 3000 ppmv until near the end of the Cretaceous Period. Then it declined fairly steadily back to today’s levels.

    The entire time, the temperatures were bouncing up and down between 12ºC and 22ºC. Twice when there was a big temperature drop, it coincided with a big CO2 decrease. And twice a big temperature drop has coincided with a mild (several hundred ppmv) CO2 increase.

    So your implication that the planet found it’s stasis and remained thus until human put its pedicured foot forward simply is not the case.

    this argument that la nina is to blame and causing the “cooling” and that it is a 30 year up-swelling of the ocean depths is one of but many factors going on now.

    To clarify, a la Nina (or el Nino) is a 6-18 month phenomenon. The PDO is a thrity year half cycle which, when running cool, favors La Ninas and while warm favors el Ninos.

    The PDO has flipped cool. The other 3 big multidecadal cycles are still running warm. But not for long. For ten years, ALL FOUR were running on warm, CO2 rose by 4% and it still cooled. What does your common sense say will happen when the other tree cycles flip cool?

    All this is leaving out the dangerously quiet sun. If THAT goes cold, we’re breezing for a freezing. Let’s all hope that doesn’t happen.

    even if we cut down the amount of CO2 we spew out now, we have 100 years of our production saved up in the bank (ocean) ready to be withdrawn when we do lower our emissions.

    But CO2 has only a 50-to-100 year persistence. So it won’t just continue to build up without an increasing “fallout” factor.

    yet you are content to carry on as is, maintain the status quo b/c of your own arrogance and claim some cherry picked info disproves everything?! you are a [snipped] lunatic, if this is what you believe.

    CO2 positive feedback theory has to be correct for runaway warming. But it’s not working out that way.

    Furthermore, the current situation will not be permanent. In 30 years an affluent India and China will be doing a vast cleanup all on their own, without anyone forcing them to do so. And we may well either have solved the CO2 issue either directly or indirectly.

    Human history his changing faster than ever before. Why do you assume the current situation is linear? It’s not. Your panic and pessimism is uncalled for.

    I am not saying you are either stupid or ignorant. But it seems to me you have a few facts critically wrong.

  90. Hans, your AGW religion is all a lie

    I don’t consider it to be a lie. I consider it to be e severe error.

  91. I elaborated on my comment above and gave it a whole page “ignorance vs stupidity” on my site in your{s} honor. this discussion is a waste of my time. why not just try to “prove” gravity doesn’t exist while you at it. then at least could look forward to flying on your own. what the [snip] you gain out of your bullshit lies and disingenuous “proofs” is beyond me?

    So Hans, why haven’t you given up all things manufactured and gone back to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle? It’s the only way to get rid of human industrial CO2, period. The fact that you use at least one computer tells me you don’t really believe there’s a catastrophe going on, but rather prefer to act superior to others and call people names.

    Have fun as the sky falls on your head, we’ll be laughing.

  92. Hans, your post shows you to be both mentally unbalanced as well as totally misinformed. Get help. Seriously.

  93. i did not claim there was 40% increase in CO2 in atmosphere, I claimed that 40% or roughly that amount of carbon locked in fossil fuels, that which came from organic matter, which is where carbon is locked anyways, but is released though either consumption or decay, the excessive carbon taken out of the system and was locked into fossil fuels over millions of years is not being released at a rapid rate and will & does have an effect.

    you claim 3 different numbers on how much carbon is absorbed by the oceans in one post.

    The ocean stashes about 38,000 Billion Metric Tons of Carbon. The annual increase of carbon is 2 BMTC.

    So call it 60 years. Less than a third of industrial output (c. 6.5 BMTC annually) winds up in the oceans. Take the increasing scale into account and we’ve got around 100 BMTC added to the oceans since 1940

    whatever, this is a waste of time. I’m the only one reading your post, so whatever continue on with whatever you gain out of this.

    nothing but the slow churn of mechanized republican dogma in here. do not back down, do not give in a small amount, don’t cede anything. all your way, your beliefs, only you are right. time is on your side, delay the acceptance of reality as long as possible, until reality is no longer what it was and can no longer be returned to what it was.

    and this sums up the lunacy of this position:

    Furthermore, the current situation will not be permanent. In 30 years an affluent India and China will be doing a vast cleanup all on their own, without anyone forcing them to do so. And we may well either have solved the CO2 issue either directly or indirectly.

    why will China & India;

    1) need to clean up their acts if there is “no problem”?
    2) feel obligated to do anything if the US refuses to do anything b/c there are people like you that are doing everything in their power to disprove it?
    3) what is this “CO2 issue” that will be solved “directly or indirectly”?

    I thought there were no problems? You all just spent page after page telling me there was not a problem, i was living a lie, i was buying into a “religion”.

  94. and to answer your question about me being hypocritical, you are in essence correct. I do have 2 computers, i have a plasma TV I did not want, that my wife gave to me as a present b/c i have done a lot for her and her family that is very poor and lives in Argentina. I paid to finish their house that was in squalid conditions when I first saw it, to give them a better life, with slightly less “needs.” I worked hard to start a business to make a lot of money quickly through hard physical work.

    And I am miserable because of living in this capitalist society, where religious zealots drive the politics & hence the country. I am miserable b/c there are people like you out there hell bent on distorting reality, instead of acknowledging there is a problem that we need to work to change now, not 30 years from now when it is too late.

    I am locked into this capitalism, bombarded by religious dogma eating into my rights, which are the same rights everyone else should have to be used in a responsible way, not “an Eff the rest of the world, I am here now, screw those that come after me.”

    I am locked in a country driven to fight wars because there are “enemies” who we are not allowed to talk to, but we can sure as hell drop bombs on them.

    Why am I angry at you, for the same reason I am angry at the right. They (you) propagate a distortion of the truth for their own selfish reasons, because denial is “better” b/c it won’t matter after “we” are dead, etc. Deny there are problems, let those after us worry about it.

    Am I unbalanced, that goes without saying. I have not worked for over a year, by choice and by being continually overwhelmed on all sides by lies and distortions, and this is but one more of those distortions chewing away at me. An economy that is going to collapse is an inevitable end result of 8 years of religious dogma driving this country, years of living off credit to be paid by future generations (if they will ever be able to) of living off cheap gas that is subsidized by a bloated military that is financed by increasing debt. So yes continue on your mission of denial and maintaining the status quo where it only bends to the right, slowly ever so slowly but constantly to the right.

    Now let’s see what your coming clean will reveal? what is your motivations of “disproving” and denial & discrediting everything that is happening? Please do tell, I’m waiting with baited breath. I already know the answer, but will not receive it. I have already stated your motivations, but you will not be frank and honest to reveal them, or your collective plan will fail. This is not conspiracy talk, this is reality. Continue on, Eff the rest, is what your collective message and motivation is.

  95. BC: I would not presume to comment on Hans’ state of mind. I am more than content to address his arguments in the hopes that either or both of us will profit.

    Besides, he cannot reasonably be expected not to strike out if pins are stuck in him.

    i did not claim there was 40% increase in CO2 in atmosphere, I claimed that 40% or roughly that amount of carbon locked in fossil fuels, that which came from organic matter, which is where carbon is locked anyways,

    Well, then you are accepting the “peak oil” argument, which is risible, prima facie. We had 3.4 tbbs potential reserve (all sources, shale, tars, bitumens, etc.) in 1975. That number is now 6.5 tbbls using the pessimistic wiki sources.

    You will know when we are actually running short when the government lifts the current crippling bans on exploration. (And when they did that, we wouldn’t be running short anymore.)

    Long before we run out of oil we will have run away from it.

    Over half of all carbon we release is reabsorbed annually. The remainder persists, but evenetually falls out. But the total of emitted carbon is only c. 6.5 BMTC/yr. which really isn’t a heck of a lot in the overall scheme of things. When India/China do their cleanup act (in c. 20-30 years), that number will go down.

    1) need to clean up their acts if there is “no problem”?

    There is a considerable problem from aerosol pollution (soot). That affects their health and does indeed degrade Arctic Ice. When they become affluent to the point where pollution is killing more of their people than poverty, they will clean up exactly as the west did and for the sme reasons.

    But cleaning up particulates is NOT the same as reducing CO2 emissions. Particulates are much cheaper to reduce than CO2 emissions.

    There ARE problems with particulate emissions. There is very probably NOT any real problems with CO2 emissions (more research pending).

    One must be very careful not to confuse smoke with CO2.

    2) feel obligated to do anything if the US refuses to do anything b/c there are people like you that are doing everything in their power to disprove it?

    The US has cleaned up its particulate act. In direct self interest. But only when we became affluent did we cease being effluent.

    The US refused to do much about CO2, but then I don’t think that will be a problem. Particulates are the problem, and the US has done very well in reduction thereof.

    3) what is this “CO2 issue” that will be solved “directly or indirectly”?

    CO2 (considering the latest satellite data) is very probably not a real problem. It may, however be proven to be one. By “direct” solution I mean something akin to a good replacement for fossil fuels. We don’t have that now. We almost certainly will eventually, but one cannot know when until it happens. Progress pending.

    By “indirectly” I mean that IF CO2 warming becomes a real problem we can work out a technological fix. Such as (to pick one possible example), scrolling out a few square miles of mylar in sloarsynchronous orbit to deflect solar energy. If done correctly, this could be adjusted up or down according to requirements. (It might even be usable as an energy source.) And unlike farfetched schemes to impregnate the atmosphere with crud or blast nukes, or whatever, it can be “undone” if it didn’t work without risking permanent damage.

    But that is hypothetical. I expect CO2, if doubled, would have a small but not significant warming effect because the IPCC positive feedback mechanisms do not seem to “work”. In that case we would not need to do anything other than clean up the aerial particulates. (The particulates in the snow are moot–once covered up with a nice clean layer, albedo is restored.)

    I agree that we must be poised for action if CO2 (against all odds) turns out to be a severe problem. But I am not willing to see many, many millions die prematurely of poverty as a result of carbon reduction unless it is really, really necessary.

    I aver that the wealthier we are and the more wealth-driven tech we have on hand at any given point will better enable us to deal with AGW (if necessary) or any other environmental problems down the pike. And even the IPCC admits the effects of Kyoto would be very, very small.

    Therefore we must not sacrifice vast amounts of wealth in a manner that will cause very much hardship with the poorest of the world bearing the brunt (as always), all to very little effect except to reduce out overall ability to cope.

    To do so would merely amount to self flagellation and human sacrifice, once the bottom line is totted up.

    I consider this to be both a sober and liberal view.

  96. Hans, how about a reading comprehension course…

    You’re still a hypocrite. A plasma TV you didn’t want, but you kept it, eh? You’re part of your own problem, yet manage to rail against us, assuming we’re all religious and republican (I’m an atheist, and do not subscribe to any specific political alignment). You apparently are willing to blindly believe some people (thus faith) but not others who simply ask questions which require answers.

    You’re not locked into anything. Move to China, they’d be glad to have you. Now give up your carbon spewing live and go live in the forest with no modern conveniences. I dare you to practice what you preach.

  97. what questions are you searching for answers to, the ones you hypothesize are legitimate? making up “science” to hide your denial? cherry picking information to legitimize your beliefs?

    i worked in an industry were it was economically prudent to cut down all the trees in the area under the power lines, but started into the industry with an ideology all trees should not be cut, and quickly was able to legitimize what I was doing as “it is better this way to prevent forest fires, not bother people constantly coming onto their properties as the trees continued to grow, reduced cost of maintanence and hence consumer’s cost, etc., etc. Man has the capacity to legitimize something whether it is good or bad.

    What is it you are legitimizing by preaching and discrediting a consensus of peer-reviewed science? It appears to me, you are legitimizing the status quo, through cherry picked information.

    it is nearly impossible for a “renter” to afford to install solar panels on their rentals so that they can reduce their carbon footprint, while at the same time there are those in your camp that attempt to discredit reality. go discredit string theory if you want to discredit something that has little to no impact on any of our lives if you want to engage in some debunking of science.

    there are too many inconsistencies within the “proofs” here. just above, EJ posted as fact fluctuations within the earth’s temperature and CO2 levels over millions of years yet claims almost in the same breath, we cannot trust ice core CO2 levels over the past 100,000 years. Excuse me, he can cherry pick them for the information he wants, then 10 seconds later discredit them at the same time.

    at least I can admit I am hypocritical in my lifestyle, but I am one person who cannot make the changes needed to go about it on any level that would matter. whereas your camp is cherry picking a few scientific reports to discredit everything so that public/governmental policy does not change to reflect the reality of what is coming down the pike. my keeping the TV has nothing to do with government policy that you are trying to influence. I having the tv will last only as long as the market will allow it, the higher the electric goes, just like gas prices, the less they will be used on a market, consumer level.

    however your camp’s decision to affect government and global policies to ignore the issues is absurd. you push a “flat earth” science that has nothing bur negative impacts on global policy to mitigate the impacts of the human experience on the planet. you want to maintain status quo, pollute as usual, it will have no “adverse” impacts, on let me remind you, the only planet we can live on.

    it is equivalent of the religious right pushing “Creationism” on schools and children to maintain a low level of regulated “intelligence” so that they may, for whatever reason, control those under them.

    don’t sit here and tell me your “science” is credible when it is taken out of context of all other factors that are affecting the global-stasis at the same time. it is garbage and disingenious to do, and to do it only shows you have ulterior motivates which I know you will not admit to. I can only surmise what they are, either Big Oil, Economic New World Order, etc.

    You are attempting to tell me the sky is red and that it is only red at all times, even though we both know that at times is can be red under certain conditions, but it requires those conditions to be red, but at other times it is not when different conditions are at work. So yeah, continue on in this crackpot attempt do disprove all to maintain status quo, through debunking a small aspect of it.

    to say I have bought into a religion, without even turning the microscope back on yourself it see you are a cult within that so called religion again is quite hypocritical, yet you will again not admit to it.

    grand plan, whatever, it is nothing more than wanton ignorance.

    i noticed you came out and called me hypocritical after I admitted it myself, yet you don’t acknowledge your own position or circumstances because you are in the same boat, yet you will deny it and attempt make others believe you are “righteous” in disproving what apparently in your eyes is being preached as religion. you are preaching both to a god and a false god at the same time.

  98. at least I can admit I am hypocritical in my lifestyle, but I am one person who cannot make the changes needed to go about it on any level that would matter.

    Then why should any of us do so? After all, we’re all just one person each. I’m not a hypocrite because I don’t believe there is a catastrophe going on and am not preaching to the world that everyone but me needs to pay the price.

    You honestly think anyone here is getting paid to “deny” anything? You’re really paranoid, aren’t you. Don’t bother answering, it’s already obvious. We can just see BS for what it is. Go ahead and buy your carbon credits, then you can explain to me how that will alter the global temperature one bit.

  99. Hans, I’m not cherrypicking. I’m attacking the cornerstone of the AGW premise. I.e., Positive reinforcement theory. If there is no positive reiforcement there is no real problem. And the AquaSat has shown that there is negative, not positive reinforcement.

    The Surface station issue is not cherrypicking either. almost half have been observed and six out of seven have site violations of one degree Celsius or more. McKitrick and Michaels (2007) independently confirm that site violations have caused world temperature increase from 1980 to 2002 to be exaggerated by a factor of TWO.

    I agree than paleoclimate proxies should be taken with a grain of salt. But it does seem there was a great deal more ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere for most of the distant past. Regardless, I’m not using that for proof, just for circumstantial evidence.

    i noticed you came out and called me hypocritical after I admitted it myself

    That wasn’t me; that was some other kid. I consider all that to be quite beside the point. It’s true I have hardly any carbon footprint. I do NOT consider that to be a virtue. (I consider it to be poverty.) I intend to increase my footprint at the earliest opportunity. Meanwhile, you can have my credits. #B^1

  100. this is a roundabout discussion I need to cut myself off of. the truth of the matter is there is no need to actively disprove these theories unless its supporters are in the pocket of big oil, etc. I see the newest post is “ice breaker caught in arctic ocean ice,” whatever, that’s like trying to prove someone is not fat because they have tiny ankles.
    cheers, believe what you want. you should be able to use all those numbers you put out to get yourself out of poverty real quick just by going over to the teet of Big Oil, as they would be happy to throw lots of bones your way.
    then again there will soon be a lot of money in solar electrics & geo-electric technologies for intelligent people, but to each his own.

    REPLY: Well you’ve insulted, denounced, and cussed. Now comes the “we may be in the employ of big oil” standard line. With apparently only those simplistic debating tools at your disposal it certainly stands to reason that you’d want to run away from debate.

  101. Poor Hans. Good luck with your AGW religion, and your obvious hatred and contempt for anyone who doesn’t buy into it. We here prefer science. Sorry about that.

  102. REPLY: Well you’ve insulted, denounced, and cussed. Now comes the “we may be in the employ of big oil” standard line. With apparently only those simplistic debating tools at your disposal it certainly stands to reason that you’d want to run away from debate.

    Actually Anthony he’s said that in every one of his posts, I believe. If only it were true, lol. I’d gladly take money for saying something I already espouse. But it would take a LOT of money to buy my opinion. Let’s say, oh, 750k from George Soros…

  103. the truth of the matter is there is no need to actively disprove these theories unless its supporters are in the pocket of big oil, etc.

    It’s “for the children”. No, I mean REALLY for the children!

    I am simply not in favor of throwing the world’s poor off the lifeboat unless and until the contrary evidence is refuted, which is the effect of the so-called “solutions” thus far proposed.

    No, I’m not in the pocket of Big Oil. (But I’d LIKE to be!)

  104. then again there will soon be a lot of money in solar electrics & geo-electric technologies for intelligent people, but to each his own.

    Fine by me. Groovy. I am all in favor of “a lot of money”! (But not in favor of wealth destruction.)

Comments are closed.