Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In

I only wish that one of Al (I play a scientist on TV) Gore’s vacation houses gets a ton of snow on his roof this winter on one of his vacation houses (in Maui?) and it caves in!

The energy industry would be most interested in what climate is going to do because it impacts demand for their products.

Gray has taken quite a bit of political heat for insistence that global warming is not a man-made condition. Man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is negligible, he said, compared to the amount of CO2 Mother Nature makes and disposes of each day or century.
That point has been made here repeatedly. The fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at the very low end of its range geologically, and has been at a concentration of many thousand parts per million for millions of years at a time in the past [compared with today’s less than 400 ppm], without ever causing runaway global warming, falsifies the CO2/global warming catastrophe hypothesis being put forth by James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, the UN and many others.
Whenever I hear anyone in the government, including NASA, GISS, etc., scaremongering about CO2, I can almost feel their hands digging around in my pockets for more loot.
Because that’s what it’s all about, folks: your hard-earned money, and how these scam artists can get at it.

There’s certainly a growing body of evidence that supports cooling. I wonder where the tipping point will be before the politicians and alarmists wake up.
0.5°C cooler? 1.0°C cooler?

Sent to Bill Hemmer, Fox News, cc’d to Dr. James Hansen —
I want to see honest debate in this country about global warming. The raw temperature data in the USA is down dramatically in 2008 by every measure, global temperatures have gone down for the past decade, and yet we hear extreme alarm from the lead scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University who runs the widely discredited GISS temperature measurement system. Dr. Hansen has gone so far as to call for global warming skeptics to be jailed at ABC News, in The Guardian, and at Worldwatch Institute. Dr. Hansen has also claimed that that the Bush Administration has tried to silence him.
I’m offering to put up $10K in prize money for the following type of 1 hour debate between Dr. Hansen v. the Author of http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/about/ and former 25 year television meteorologist. I would like to see American Idol style voting to determine the winner, multi-media presentations instead of simply two guys at podiums and the money going to the winner. The show does not need to be live, and in fact the debate can take place over a period of weeks to ensure the best multi-media presentations, arguments, and rebuttals possible – with no talking over people etc that goes with live debate. Their can be no personal attacks … just data. The debate must not include glaciers, hurricanes, polar bears, coral reefs, frogs dying out, etc. which can all have multiple causes unrelated to Global warming. The debate should be EXCLUSIVELY about the TEMPERATURE of the earth. However, the final 5 to 10 min of the show and voting should be live. Dr. Hansen does not seem to want to have real debates but has taken quite a lot of money for his speaking engagements. Hopefully FOX will have better luck.
The topics of the debate should be
1. The Quality of Dr. Hansen’s GISS Temperature Network which has been the dominate temperature data set of record for anthropogenic global warming advocates.
2. The Differences between Dr. Hansen’s GISS Temperature Network v. satellite data from UAH.
3. The Global temperature record from 1998 to 2008 as compared to Dr. Hansen’s predictions before Congress in 1998 – see graph. As you can easily see, Dr. Hansen was widely wrong as temperatures in 2008 are roughly where they were in 1988.
(Graph from Dr. Hansen’s 1988 Congressional Hearing here)
4. Finally, I would like Dr. Hansen to respond to the great cooling events we have seen in 2007 and 2008 and give an explanation.
5. Both debaters should give an estimate of the expected global temperature record from now to 2018 and then out to 2118 – so we can have this debate again in 10 years.
Sources
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ex=1296190800&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ei=5088
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5228739&affil=wjla
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
Here is Dr. Hansen’s contact info.
REPLY: Here’s Dr. Hansen’s contact info –
Dr. James E. Hansen
Columbia University
750 Armstrong Hall
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025 USA
Phone: (212) 678-5500

I wonder if this will lead to a new class of deniers. If these projections come true, how long before a set of “New Deniers” arises to carry on denying that the earth is cooling off?
There were some who denied that the earth was warming at all, even into the late 90’s, because for them it had become political the moment the Greens took an interest. Only later in the game did they shift to denying only the man-made aspect.
Will we see the mirror image of that from the Greens now? I’ve already had a couple of conversations that foreshadow this. The conversations went like this: “So you deny Global Warming?” Me: “Not while it was warming up I didn’t. Do you deny that its starting to cool back off?
Try it, the stunned stares are worth it. Have one of Anthony’s 2002-present temperature trend charts handy. I know that its statistically premature to be using those things, but where I live I’m surrounded by AGW missionaries, and sometimes I just can’t help myself.
REPLY: Let’s leave the word “deniers” off this website, no matter who we are speaking of. The term was coined referring to “holocaust deniers”. In science, there is no room for such labels, no matter what side of the debate you are on. “Skeptic” is the better word. – Anthony

I doubt that anyone on either side of the debate has any clue what will happen more than about a week out. Enough with the long range predictions. They are a complete waste of time, no matter who they come from.
REPLY: I was thinking the very same thing right after I posted this. I’m inclined to agree. We think we know a lot about earths’ atmospheric and oceanic systems, yet new things are discovered daily. We think we know a lot about the sun’s mechanisms, yet it continues to give us surprising behavior that doesn’t follow solar cycle predictions.
Nature is more complex than many choose to admit. Simple models that don’t consider chaos and complex nonlinear systems just don’t cut it. Man has a tendency by his own arrogance to believe that he can fully understand and conquer nature. Yet if nature wishes to conquer man, she has only to flex a finger the barest of movement. – Anthony

From another angle: even with all of their very dedicated machinations directed solely at “proving” global warming, etc., the ipcc Climate Scientists have had such a difficult time even in trying to establish much of a significant “global warming” trend per se that one would tend to get the idea that we are instead in some kind of plateau phase regarding these temperatures – at best.
In my experience, people who think like the ipcc Climate Scientists – that is, unscientifically/subrationally, especially in service of a political agenda or extreme psychological need – not only usually get things wrong, they often get them exactly 180 degrees wrong. So I’m going to be moderately surprised if the global climate doesn’t cool – with the disclaimer that, since the ipcc Climate Scientists are not doing Science to begin with, anything they predict or say is going on now globally – such as catestrophic runaway anthropogenic global warming – has only a [very low] random chance of becoming or being true, so that it’s exact opposite has a similarily less chance of becoming or being true.
Regardless, if the ipcc Climate Scientists had instead done things scientifically, the World of People would have been in a better position by now to decide what doing the right thing for People and the rest of the World – including the “World” itself – actually might be.

I guess I’ll always listen to what T. Boone has to say. He’s been around the oil patch a while and has done his share of Wildcatting. Doesn’t strike me as a guy that could easily be fooled.
Maybe he has an angle on the wind turbine farms. I forget the dollar number. But, he’s throwing some big bucks at it. The little I’ve read about them, most recently at the EU Referendum Blog, indicated they’re very expensive to construct and high maintenance. The wind has to be blowing too. Some other kind of power generation has to be spooled up and running to take up the slack when the wind stops.
Several post at EU Referendum on wind turbines. They don’t think much of them at all.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search?q=wind+turbine

Right, Joe S, T-Bone has been around the Oil Patch long enough to accrue huge interests in natural gas. Also, electrifying where there ain’t any moisture won’t work, and he knows, but hopes you don’t, that transporting electricity is a lot more expensive than transporting natural gas.
==================================

Before y’all put any more money into T. Boone’s pockets, ya might wanna check out what Steven Milloy has to say about his Wind Farm ads:
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080710.html

I’m of the belief that the leaders of the AGW movement and those politicos pushing hard for policy change and carbon taxes have known for years that the cooling pattern would occur in the next decade or so. I think the plan all along has been to then point to the cooling period as evidence that policy change (Kyoto, et al) did indeed work. It would only make any subsequent policy change all the easier, and capitalism would suffer hugely – the intended result. But alas, Kyoto nor any other significant policy change has occurred, and global cooling is showing up slightly earlier than expected. Hopefully, the data of the next few years lends itself to a “game, set, match” conclusion to this tremendously misguided initiative.

Smokey, that was a powerful and telling story on Pickens and his water dealings. Whew!

I hope “Watts Up With That” readers will forgive me for two sins; first for posting off topic, and second for being a bit slow on the uptake, as this court ruling happened in April of 2007. In any event the Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
There are at least two problems with the courts thinking:
1) First of all it seems that the court is of the opinion that carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas:
(From PG 7 of PDF file)
“A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.” (emphasis mine)
Of course readers of this forum are well aware that water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas, although water vapor is not even mentioned in the court’s opinion. So it seems that the court is not aware of the facts.
2) The court has determined that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act’s definition:
(From PG 32 of PDF file)
“The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added). On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”25 Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.26””
Apparently the court is unaware that water vapor would also meet that definition and could also be called a “pollutant”.
So the court has specifically determined carbon dioxide to be a pollutant despite the fact that it is a naturally occurring substance and is essential for all plant life. Additionally by the court’s interpretation, water vapor could also be determined to be a pollutant in spite of the fact that it is crucial for all life on land. (No water vapor = no rain)

I agree with the first part of Bruce Cobb’s statement that AGW predictions of the climate are essentially worthless. However, he is overly optimistic in terms of predicting climate based on the Sun’s recent and expected behavior. The Sun’s behaviour is notoriously difficult to predict – the NASA panel in 2007 was totally split about the timing and strength of the imminent Solar Cycle 24 and while there is statistical correlation between the Sun’s behavior and the climate these correlations are by no means foolproof and 100% correct. Let us not make the mistake that the AGW people made and declare that we have a total understanding of the climate because some of the indicators point in a particular direction.

A couple of comments about what is being discussed:
1. If CO2 is a pollutant, and, since I personally emit CO2 every few seconds, then the EPA is going to regulate each me? Perhaps each of us will have to file for a permit to breath? Is not this the logical conclusion to draw from this assumption, I mean if one really believes CO2 is pollution, one would have to logically control all sources of this horrible pollutant? (IMHO: CO2 is plant food, and not a pollutant)
2. I also emit H2O, especially when doing my yard work. So will I need a second permit?
3. What if my wife and I want to have a child? Will we have to file an environmental impact statement and get another permit?
4. About Picken’s plan. If wind generated electricity is cheaper than what I pay now, bring it on. Otherwise, I don’t see the point of lowering everyone’s standard of living. Same with Solar. The engineering limitations are not my concern – both would need to be coupled with an energy storage mechanism to even out the supply (think pumping water uphill into a reservoir using excess electricity and releasing the stored water as needed to make up for shortfalls). But why would I want to pay more for electricity – I already pay $0.17/kwh. I’m happy with coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal – doesn’t matter to me, just use what is the most economical and I’m happy – no taxpayer subsidies please.
5. What is it about some people who insist on lowering everyone’s standard of living and attempting to dictate to everyone else what they can and cannot do? Is freedom that difficult of a concept to grasp? I won’t live in a dense urban area, in a 500 sq ft apartment and only allowed to walk or bicycle to where I want to go – and I sure won’t be made to do it. If other’s choice that lifestyle, that is their free choice, but not mine.
6. Some think AGW is about separating us from our hard earned money, and it is, but it is also about separating us from our freedom and rights granted from God, not man.

Interesting article!!!
http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=74

Yes, indeed, OCW. Though we get some value for that $700 billion, let’s keep those bucks at home every chance we get.
How ’bout develop our own reserves and put a pump on ’em?
Russia sure is… Russia’s Putin tours new rig in Arctic oil drive
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7IFwV9Crl9T3O34vrjPL1hs9z-A

People are keep buying stock analysis software that supposedly can predict the market. Climatologists create climate models that supposedly predict the future climate. Both are highly complex systems with highly uncertain boundary and parameter values. Both are useful research tools and neither is good at providing accurate results for the far future. People seem to want to believe that they can know the future be it by software, i-ching, or chicken entrails.
Science has always been about accurate measurement, refining the value of things, ensuring the correctness of an experiment, repeatability. This seems to have become lost in the present age. Just keep going till you get a result that supports your dogma.

Joe S (11:34:33), and others… True enough, Pickens has every right to make a buck, and he definitely has a head for business. As mentioned, he’s tying the wind farm thing in with the water selling to Dallas.
He’s also using Kelo to use the takings clause for his electricity/water project to Dallas. A private corporation will be taking a whole lot of land from private property owners to sell his energy. Not to mention sucking the Ogallalla Aquifer dry, at a time when it’s already falling dramatically. Furthermore, as the Northern Panhandle (well situated for wind farms) is on the national grid, he (read the taxpayers) are going to have to pay a whole lot of cash to tie it in to the Texas grid, which is it’s own animal.
Top it all off with the fact that he’s condemning a whole lot of land in the wind farm area, having created a whole new governmental organization. One that has five whole members. Who work for him.
He has a big stake in this selling of the idea that we’ve already reached peak oil, and need not drill what we already have. That, and the above listed matters, make me really leery of someone doing the things he is.

I don’t think many people appreciate just how devastating an unexpected north american cold snap this winter could be to the financial markets. That’s the reason I watch this story so intently.
Natural gas supply is very closely tied to winter demand. During the summer, most of the gas produced is put into storage, except for what is used to run peak gas plants. btw, everytime a coal plant is shut down or a coal permit is denied, new natural gas plants are built to replace them. That is the only type of large scale electrical generating plant still being built today, since everything else is off the table. T Boone, notwithstanding, wind just isn’t a major player yet.
Right now, gas storage is running about 5 % LESS than last year, even though production has gone up. (those electrical generators are burning gas that should be stored, and this is also the biggest problem with T. Boone’s CNG idea) The amount of nat gas storage is closely tied to expected demand from a normal winter – a warm winter produces lower demand and dropping prices, a colder than normal winter will rapidly put nat gas into a shortage situation, and since supply depends on the previous years storage, it is an impossible situation to remedy short term. In a harsh winter, nat gas prices, currently at about $12/mmcf, could spike to $16/mmcf and possibly even to $20/mmcf. This may not sound like much, but every heating and electrical bill in America would double from last years level the instant this happens and there is no remedy – none at all – in the cards. Oil reacts sympathetically to nat gas prices (there is some switching that goes on, although it is limited) so even though gasoline usage is dropping a spike to $20 nat gas could easily drive oil prices up to $200/bbl midwinter, which would be the final nail in the coffin of this economy – of the world economy in general. The belief that oil and gas prices are currently in a bubble would be shattered as the financial world came to believe that $20 nat gas and $200/bbl oil were the “new normal”. The American economy, as it is currently consituted, can not function at those price levels. Someone wanted to know what would be the trigger that would clue people in that cooling is a real problem – this would be the trigger. Of course, by the time the trigger is pulled it’s far too late to avoid the consequences. In this case, the consequences would be a bullet through the heart of our current economic system.
That’s the nightmare scenario we’re headed for this winter, and I think it has uncomfortably good odds of coming to pass.

Philip_B,
Thanks for the reply.

WWS wrote: “In a harsh winter, nat gas prices, currently at about $12/mmcf, could spike to $16/mmcf and possibly even to $20/mmcf. This may not sound like much, but every heating and electrical bill in America would double from last years level the instant this happens and there is no remedy – none at all – in the cards.”
Peoples Gas in Northern Illinois has already warned its customers that a 25% price hike can be expected.
Jack Koenif, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

I love that there is so much enthusiasm for renewable energy. True story, I was on a flight last year to Singapore from London and got talking to a guy on the plane called Professor David Infield, a very personable chap. He is a Professor of Renewable Energy Technologies and the University of Strathclyde. I still have his business card in my collection.
We were casually talking about AGW theory and the impact of renewable sources would have. He stated that, for example, domestic solar panels are built to last for around 20 years, however, the energy expended to create them at present outways the benefit of the energy they save. He also pointed out that a wind turbine was not the most efficient way either. He said that after you have taken maintenace, construction, calibrating (which has to be done regularly) the beneficial energy they produce was minimal and one of the most least efficient was of generating power.
His thoughts were that we have no real viable technology now to make the switch from fossel fuels to. Nuclear is an obvious choice and very safe choice, but the issue is how to deal with the waste in an evironmentaly friendly manor.
Now, I just want to be very clear, I am reciting this from memory so if I have made an error in quoting David, then please forgive me.

Are we going back to the 1970s? Cooling or warming?

When people get their heating bills this fall in the NE it will cause a political firestorm. People will go from $1000 per home to heat to $3000 or more. Expect the cost of Diesel to spike about Sept and the public to erupt in October when they go to fill their heaters.

The world has been much hotter and with higher CO2 and and things thrived. Plants love C02. The Medieval Warm was when all the great Cathedral of Europe were built, Greenland was settled, and grapes grew in England. On the other hand we have history of the Little Ice Age when famine occurred. Cooling means that food production is more difficult and northern and southern hemisphere crop growing areas decrease. We already have a food shortage in the world, so let’s pray that warming keeps on rather than slipping into a cool period – as seems to be happening.

From what I understand there is enough methane in methane hydrate on the ocean floors to meet our natural gas needs for centuries. Why can’t we harvest it and use it before it melts and releases methane into the atmosphere?

Can anyone tell me if any of the global climate models reproduce the El Nino phenomenon? It would seem that any model would be suspect if it does not reproduce such a robust climate oscillation. Thanks for any help.

Drew Latta (18:46:59) :
The biggest problem with wind is its reliability for a primary system. Until some sort of storage capacity (flywheels, giant capacitors?) is developed, dramatic dropoffs in wind when it’s expected to be blowing can be very influential in the grid. As was mentioned upthread, or in another, we had a major cut to customers this winter when the normally good winds fell to almost zero for several days.
Austin, the turbines normally run pretty well out here (Southern Plains), but yeah, the last week or so, it’s been milder. Every time I go out for a Sunday ride, any direction, there are lots of turbines, and usually going gangbusters. Again, it’s just not reliable yet for a primary system, more like an addition to the coal fired.
Not entirely OT, Xcel Energy announced last week that they are going together with a few other suppliers and are building a medium sized solar plant in Eastern NM. Of the mirror variety, not the photoelectric cell type. The big wigs announcing it mentioned that it and wind are supplimental, not primary, so at least someone has their heads on straight.

Anthony,
This is off topic but here I go. Before I say anything else I want to mention that I really enjoy this blog as it is a great source of information. I also appreciate it greatly as it provides a counterbalance to the overwhelming number of articles found in the mainstream media supporting AGW or should I say ACC as I am sure it is soon going to be called. However I was a bit disappointed with your comment which I have pasted in below.
“Let’s leave the word “deniers” off this website, no matter who we are speaking of. The term was coined referring to “holocaust deniers”. In science, there is no room for such labels, no matter what side of the debate you are on. “Skeptic” is the better word.”
I appreciate what you are try to do. However as many commenters on this blog will understand it is misinformation spread by the likes of Al Gore, James Hasen, David Suzuki and Tim Flannery that may lead to the sacrificing of our western economies on the alter of AGW/ACC at the First Church of Radical Environmentalism.
Having checked Wikidictionary, the Macquarie Dictionary, and the online versions of both the Oxford and Websters dictionaries I have found two definitions and two etymologies for the word d***er. The first definition which is irrelevant to your comment states that a d***er is a unit by which the fineness of yarn is measured and originally denotes a French small coin coming from the Latin denarius. (You learn something new everyday!)
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/denier?view=uk
The second which is applicable to your comment is d***er, one who denies. Webster’s online dictionary states that the the term was first used in English literature prior to 1593.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/denier
As anyone knows, who has looked into the topic of Antisemitism can tell you its presence in Europe predates 1593. However the genocide of European Jews by the Nazis, which is commonly called the Holocaust, did not occur until well over 300 years after 1593 and thus is clearly not the source from which the term d***er was coined.
I realise that you are using the term d***er in a very specific sense as it relates to the AGW/ACC debate. But please lets not sacrifice the English Language on the altar of Political Correctness at the First Church of Irrational Liberal Idealism. After all d***er is a good word to describe anyone who denies something.
By the way Anthony I hope you and yours are safe from those wildfires which continue to burn in California. Oh and keep up the good work with the website and weather station review.

@Bruce Cobb
I tend to agree with you. Climate has shown quite good correlation with solar activity. But still I would modify your statement from:
“…significant cooling looks very likely…
to:
“…significant cooling looks likely…”
Others in this forum say you can’t predict beyond a week, yet fret about “dead” suns and lack of sunspots.
Personally I wouldn’t rule out both sides of the climate debate being right. AGW may be real, and superimposed on solar trends. AGW probably will simply shift the solar driven trends a half a degree Celsius upwards. I view this as benefit, and not a calamity.

Pierre Gosselin:
The warmists are disingenuous when they claim temperatures climbed faster in the 1990’s than TSI increases when the TSI peak of the 1960’s – 1980’s lagged in the seas, knowing full well that the seas constitute 80-90% of GW. It goes to show how utterly incomplete their models have been when they didn’t foresee a temperature plateau from the TSI drop in the early 1990’s possibly coupled w/ increased aerosol albedo/shading.
If the TSI peak of the late 20th C portends a solar crash, then we’re in for a long TSI decrease. Take away -0.3 degrC TSI & -0.3 degrC from soot mitigation and we could be seeing a net -0.6 degrC counter-effect to AGW.
If cosmic rays have even a 1% effect on cloud cover that could add another -0.6 offset against AGW. Now we’re at -1.2 degrC.
If we threw out the bulk of the Arctic thaw of the past 150 years caused by soot deposition, that’d be another -0.15 degrC or a total of -1.35 degrC. And after all, the Arctic thaw is not a problem until possibly thousands of years from now were Greenland to completely fall into the sea!
If we take out the post-Pinatubo UV-B warming of surface ozone, another -0.3 to -0.6 degrC, or -1.65 to -1.95 degrC total offsets (the stratosphere immediately cooled due to post-Pinatubo ozone loss, about -0.6 degrees Celsius, due to loss of UV-warmed ozone — that UV hit the surface, making more ozone as well as warming any already existing).
But what the climate modelers are saying is that we’re headed for +3.0 degrC warming (assuming aerosols are mitigated) all based on the evidence of an ongoing warming trend, presumably all due to GHG.
But if we ignore nearly 1.6 – 2.0 degrees as either a negative forcing or non-critical, then what’s left is approximately equiv. to the amt of warming presumably masked by aerosols, 1 – 1.4 degrees.
And the problem with this is…. ?

I just love this site.
Thank you so much Anthony for the labors involved in getting this set up.
Comments regarding the current cooling illustrate how valuable this place is. What an array of thoughtful observers.
Yes, we are definitely cooling. Just how much and for how long will be known in the future.
Here is a very thoughtful paper on the implications of any really serious cooling in the future:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/ArchibaldMarch2008.pdf
I really hope Archibald is wrong. I don’t want my granddaughters to have to deal with a world in the grip of a Dalton or Maunder minimum coupled with growing populations.
The minute I saw T. Boone on the the TV talking, I thought, he wants something. Sure enough, all was explained here on this thread. He wants what every believer in free markets and independent capitalism wants: he wants the privatization of profit and the socialization of losses. That is, when there are profits to be made, he wants them. When there are losses, he wants to share with the taxpayer.
So, there’s a tax subsidy about to go away, hmmmh? Can’t have that. So let’s start up a big ad campaign and act like we want to join hands with all the little people of America and do what the big moneyed interests have failed to do: cut oil imports.
We’re seeing exactly the same thing going on with ethanol alcohol. Take away the subsidies and it will all dry up. Never mind the current system leads to huge market dislocations and food shortages for the poor of the world, it’s time to make money.
T. Boone says he knows more about energy than anyone. Modest fellow isn’t he? Then how come he says we can’t drill our way out of this energy crisis when the use of more natural gas (what he is advocating) will require a great deal of drilling for more natural gas?
Thanks everyone for the discussion.

Redneck, I love the way you cling to your reference tomes, but honestly, honey, ya’ gotta work on the bitterness part.
====================================

I’n not sure if this is OT or not, but Just in respect to the % concentrations of greenhouse gases, can you guys confirm the following is representative:
Water Vapour = 95%
CO2 = 3.5%
NO2, Methane, CFC’s etc etc make up the rest
I have a few questions and a some theory I would like your comments on, just for my lay person understanding.
Question 1: Is Water Vapour more a potent GHG than CO2?
If this is the case, then I move on, (if not, then ignore the rest!) so please bear with me on this…
Logically speaking, the more CO2 that is put into the atmosphere, the greater it’s percentage of GHG makeup. Equally, the levels of Water Vapour must come
down. The next bit is very simplistic…
If Water Vapour is more potent and the % comes down due to the increase in CO2 levels, then surely the overall GH effect is reduced.
Question 2: Would this overall reduction not cause a cooling effect?
If this theory is logically sound, then it could also explain the time lag of temperature following CO2 levels (see what I’ve done here? I’ve looked at the CO2/temperature relation from a different perspective)
Question 3: Does any of the above stack up? I realise that this is the most simplistic of simple terms and that there are many other factors in driving climate, but it would settle some thoughts I was having.
Many thanks guys.

The forbidden “d” word is thrown at the skeptics by the AGW crowd to paint them in the worst possible light. After all, they don’t “believe”, therefore are evil and must be cast down.
If it continues to cool, I’m quite sure al-Gore and crew will blame it all on those horrible “d”ers. Whatever happens is always bad and the blame has to fall on someone. Nothing changes by itself. If it did, half the lawyers would starve.
As for predictions, we have dozens of variables, only a few equations and we don’t know if they use the variables properly, or what all the variables mean. Slightly better than a crystal ball and tea leaves, although on some days, I’m not sure.
(ahem) I predict the climate (like the stock market according to JP Morgan) will fluctuate.

HadCrut is in at +0.31°C, beating GISS.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#CRUG

“Why the world education system didn’t get a clue on this two decades ago is a tale for another day (and partially beyond my ability willingly to comprehend, anyway). It’s not a liberal Vs conservative thing. It is sublimely empirical, and has been demonstrated thoroughly, comprehensively, and repeatedly.” Evan Jones
Evan,
This is a very provocative statement and I would like to read more on the subject if you have some recommendations.
From what I understand, knowledge + energy + raw materials = progress. So I get alarmed when one of those ingredients is under attack. Since, as you point out, we can’t run out of raw material, I find it interesting that education and energy are under attack.
I think part of the answer is that some people fear too much progress. But we have to have it. The universe is dangerous and we had better be able to defend ourselves one day.

I thought it would be interesting to look at this paper http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/clim_res_had_fut_pol.pdf
which was issued by the UK Met Office in which the following was stated
“We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 °C compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998. ”
also in the paper was a forecast graph of temperature anomolies – page 6. As the baseline was different to the normal Hadcrut figures it is necessary to modify the Hadcrut figures. I have added the data for 2005, 2006 and 2007 with the current average for 2008 shown in green. These figures are all derived from the Hadcrut latest figures. The deviation from the predicted is, to say the least, worrying. http://www.holtlane.plus.com/images/climate_forecast_updated.jpg

Anyone here know if the D word was used to disparage others before WWII?

I believe the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is .0387% not 3.5%. 387ppmv (parts per million by volume).
If it were 1000 times higher (as 3.5% == 3500ppmv would be), people would feel it’s affects, making some people sleepy.

Re: Mike Bryant – This might cool things down a little:
Unlikely. For a volcano to have a global effect, its eruption must meet certain characteristics. First, the eruption needs to happen in a part of the world where the prevailing circulation will spread the ash and dust globally. Remember that there is a somewhat dominant poleward shift of the winds within the troposphere due to the Coriolis Effect, so a volcanic eruption needs to be situated within the tropics for its effect to be felt worldwide. Second, the eruption needs to reach the stratosphere. 50,000 feet doesn’t quite cut it, but the point is irrelevant because its not situated in the “right” part of the world. There are other factors, such as the eruption must be vertical, it must be composed of a great deal of water and sulfates, and a couple other things. But think – did the Chilean eruption this year have any major effect? I wouldn’t expect this one too either.
As for the denialist/skeptic rhetoric going on here, let’s be clear: just because “denialist” is a loaded term doesn’t mean it is always being used in a perjorative manner. I typically call Mr. Watts and other people “skeptics” because although they may be skeptical about certain premises of AGW, they usually admit that the basic physical aspects of it are correct. However, there are some people here and elsewhere who deny even the basic tenets of global warming based on the greenhouse effect. Without naming names, some people here and at other blogs on the internet continue to suggest – without any shred of mathematical demonstration whatsoever – that the premise that CO2 could contribute to warming is flawed. Others suggest AGW is a plot by the UN to subvert the United States and establish a socialist global government. These claims are ridiculous, and at their root is a denial of climate science, modern politics, and reality itself.
I’ll respect Mr. Watts wishes and not refer to these people as “denialists” when I’m on this blog. Elsewhere, however, I must call it as I see it. It’s not about lumping you in with holocaust deniers or anything, it’s calling you out on something so trivial that it doesn’t really even warrant a response.

whenever one speaks of the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (as opposed to a percentage) remember this for context:
According to WikiPedia, the average mass of the atmosphere is…
FIVE QUADRILLION metric tons.

Counters.
Your argument of “skeptics” versus “denialist” is an arbitrary and somewhat
non-sensical distinction. The big difference is the obviously derogatory connotation of the term “denialist” as it compares AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers. I do not know whether you can make a distinction between “skeptics” and “denialist” based on their degree of acceptance of AGW theories. There are three undisputed scientific observations that no person with a modicum of scientific knowledge has any problem accepting:
1.,Atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide has gone up by about 35% since the industrial era – mostly due to human emission.
2., Carbon Dioxide is a Green House gas and Green House gases make a significant contribution to the warming of the Earth Climate.
3., The Global Temperature of the Earth increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century.
The proponents of AGW theory derive the following conclusions from the above undisputed observations:
a., 3., is a direct consequence of 1., and 2.,
b., Continued burning of fossil fuel would lead to catastrophic consequences and we effectively must stop burning of fossil fuels, even if it means dismantling our industrial society.
I vigorously reject b., because it is based on faulty science, namely that further heating by Carbon Dioxide would result in a runaway temperature increase. This would imply that our climate is driven by a positive feedback mechanism indicating a fundamentally unstable climate. Many millions of years of climate history indicates that this is not the case. Our climate is remarkably stable.
I also object to a., not because it may be incorrect, but because it lacks a scientifically rigorous proof that it is correct. We know that there are factors other than carbon dioxide that contribute to warming or cooling. The cooling in the period of 1940 to 1975 and the fairly recent cooling took place while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased steadily. Unless we can identity these other factors that cause cooling and more importantly can quantify them with a reasonable degree of confidence, we cannot determine the warming effect of Carbon Dioxide with confidence.
Now, my question to you Counter, Do I qualify as a “Skeptic” or a ” Denier”

Oldjim (13:08:22) :
Paul (10:18:13) :
I did modify the numbers which is why the 2004 number matched the graph.
The baseline was adjusted by reducing the Hadcrut numbers by 0.222 so that the actual 2004 number of 0.432 was reduced to 0.21
Is this reduction is a normal thing to do? Surely playing with the data in this way is like opening a pandora’s box leaving it open for critism both good and bad. What is the rationale behind this adjustment?

Bruce, I already stated that I will not name names, although as you’ve volunteered yourself, let’s dissect your comment. You see, your little strawman is precisely one of the nonsensical ones that I was referring to. No one claims that “CO2 drives climate.” That is an absurd statement on several levels, and it betrays your ignorance of the subject at hand. You see, I’ve been around this debate long enough to know that your phrasing is meant to evoke the Meteorology 101 axiom that “the sun drives the atmosphere.” The concentration of CO2 alters the radiation budget of the Earth’s atmospheric/oceanic system – the greenhouse effect follows through from there. Don’t play semantics when you should be playing logic or mathematics.
If you want a mathematical demonstration, then crack open an astrophysics textbook. The basic premise of the Greenhouse Effect was established by Svante Arrhenius over a hundred years ago, a fact which I remember from my Junior year of High School, where we were taught this little tidbit in Chemistry. You are suggesting that the underlying basic physical premise of AGW is flawed – a premise that is, essential, axiomatic. It is taken prima facia not due to laziness, but because it is an elementary physical concept. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to disprove this effect, not mine to defend it.
Tom Klein, you missed my point: despite whatever connotations the word “denier” has, I highly doubt that any AGW proponents are using that word to captivate upon its baggage. We mean it in the most literal sense. I don’t want to label someone of whom I’ve only read a post, so let me answer your question with one of my own: You seem to object to the premise that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas; do you object to the premise of the greenhouse effect in its entirety? If so, why, and if not, where is your evidence – anecdotal, physical, or mathematical – that CO2 does not act as such? The evidence that CO2 does has clearly been outlined in the scientific canon – I’ll leave it to yo to crack open an Earth Science text book and read up on it.

Counters.
Talking about missing points! Let me illustrate by copying a section from your comment and juxtaposing with a section from my comments.
1., Your comment: “You seem to object to the premise that CO2 can act as a greenhouse gas; do you object to the premise of the greenhouse effect in its
entirety? ”
2., The relevant part of my comment:” There are three undisputed scientific observations that no person with a modicum of scientific knowledge has any problem accepting:
1.,Atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide has gone up by about 35% since the industrial era – mostly due to human emission.
2., Carbon Dioxide is a Green House gas and Green House gases make a significant contribution to the warming of the Earth Climate.
3., The Global Temperature of the Earth increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century.”
I rest my case

Evan,
Thanks for the book recommend. But the next 200 years!? It will take a MIRACLE for us to not destroy ourselves by then. Bush thinks he can limit the spread of nuclear weapons and maybe he can. But who can prevent the development of biological weapons? Here in the South we were working on Yankee specific viruses but decided against them on moral grounds(I noted what a fine Yankee you were).
But seriously, the US has got to quit making enemies or one day they WILL have their revenge and it won’t take a nuke.

The basic premise of the Greenhouse Effect was established by Svante Arrhenius over a hundred years ago, a fact which I remember from my Junior year of High School, where we were taught this little tidbit in Chemistry.

So, are we supposed accept as Ultimate Truth scientific theories of over a hundred years ago, or just those that were printed in Junior science textbooks?

That nice Mr Evan Jones said:
“Even the British Empire (no worse than most and better than some) had the Opium War. Make that TWO Opium Wars.”
We might have had opium wars but we also exported cricket. The equation is heavily balanced in favour of the latter.
Incidentally, cricket gives rise to one of the great scientific mysteries, namely, why does a cricket ball sometimes swing through the air and sometimes go in a straight line?
Everyone who has played a lot of cricket at a decent level (such as your humble and modest FatBigot) knows that a cricket ball will swing more readily in humid conditions than in dry air. Lots of jolly clever chaps in white coats and laboratories have conducted exhaustive tests and, as I recall, have concluded that humidity has nothing to do with it. THE science is clear, they tell us, it is all about the construction of the particular ball, the concentration of deer fat used in tanning the leather, the type of dye used to colour the ball red and the bowling action of the particular bowler, there is a clear consensus among the experts.
But it cannot be THE science because the conclusion does not accord with what actually happens. It is certainly science but it is not THE exhaustive, definitive, final, correct science because its conclusion is demonstrably wrong.
Such an absolute dismissal of the science applied by the consensus of experts is not borne of ignorant arrogance, quite the opposite, it is borne of the fact that in 35 years of playing the game I have been able to swing a ball consistently in humid conditions but only rarely when the air is dry. Generations of bowlers have attested to the same. We are not wrong because we are not scientists, we are right because we actually experience it.
It is a fine lesson to bear in mind whenever scientists tell us they have established something (indeed, anything) as a fact.
Perhaps this helps to explain my scepticism about AGW. The grandiose theories of imminent disaster simply do not accord with what I observe (or, to be more precise, with how my idea of common sense interprets what I observe). Some of you were kind enough to take a look at my rambling thoughts about Chicken Licken in the context of AGW. All I was expressing was my reluctance, as a layman, to accept a scientific theory which accords with the Chicken Licken fable.
You need no specialist knowledge or training to know that a computer model that predicts a rise in global temperature when there is actually a fall is likely to have a fault in it somewhere. And you don’t need to know anything about computer models to have the right to point out the apparent problem.
You need no specialist knowledge or training to know that someone defending such a computer model is likely to be barking up the wrong tree.
You need no specialist knowledge or training to know that if you feed inaccurate data into a model you will get an inaccurate conclusion.
You can’t make a pork sausage by feeding minced lamb into a sausage machine. And if the sausage machine is set-up to produce thin sausages it won’t produce fat ones.

In the summer, I hate global warming. In the winter, I hate global cooling. Al Gore would be more successful if he changed his position this often.

I would love for us to just be a strongly defended example for the rest of the world.
Better to defeat the barbarians away from the gates.
They hate us cause we are there and I don’t blame them.
They hates us because they hate. They want the power that we have. We give up some of it, they’ll want more. We leave “over there” they’ll come after us here. It’s an increasingly small world, after all, and I don’t think we can easily shrink away from the rest of it to hide out.
Warfare is the history of the human race.

Paul (15:30:33) :
I quote from the paper “Temperatures are plotted as anomalies (relative to 1979–2001)” but the HadCRUT anomalies are measured relative to the 1961-90 mean so it is necessary to rebase the Hadcrut anomalies to match the graph. This isn’t fiddling with the data only bringing the anomalies to the same baseline

FatBigot (20:40:36) :”We might have had opium wars but we also exported cricket. The equation is heavily balanced in favour of the latter.”
I dunno. I played cricket once (sort of) and never really understood the rules. Are you sure you don’t want to stick with the Opium Wars? 🙂
This is hardly the place to discuss this but that was interesting about the relation between swinging and humidity. Would have thought it was an aerodynamic effect (which decreases with decreasing air density). Humid air is less dense than dry air. I suppose I should look up this paper: Binnie, A.M. (1976). The effect of humidity on the swing of cricket balls. International Journal of Mechanical Science, 18, 497-499.

DAV (05:00:04) :
FatBigot (20:40:36) :”We might have had opium wars but we also exported cricket. The equation is heavily balanced in favour of the latter.”
I dunno. I played cricket once (sort of) and never really understood the rules. Are you sure you don’t want to stick with the Opium Wars?
This is hardly the place to discuss this but that was interesting about the relation between swinging and humidity. Would have thought it was an aerodynamic effect (which decreases with decreasing air density). Humid air is less dense than dry air. I suppose I should look up this paper: Binnie, A.M. (1976). The effect of humidity on the swing of cricket balls. International Journal of Mechanical Science, 18, 497-499.
There is an element of aerodynamics involved in the swing of the ball. A typical cricket ball has a polished side and a rough side. Air will always run much more freely on the polished side than the rough side. It is this drag effect on the rough side that causes the swing. The more moisture in the air, the more dense the air, the more drag coefficiant on the rough side of the ball generating greater swing. As an Englishman, I like to watch the odd cricket match and this is a key element in the tactics of play!

K,
You are right that wind power is not new. Which is why we know so much about how much it costs. The only reason wind power comes even close to being competitive is because of the tax subsidies offered for it.
In other places, it’s being put in because the law requires it, not because it makes any economic sense.

The utilities already have boxes that you can connect to your home electric water heater that can be used to turn off the water heater in times of high demand. We had one in Atlanta, the bribe was a small break in our electric rates.

Tom Klein (14:30:18) :
I for one will contest your point 3.
Due to the quality of the temperature tracking system, (as documented by our good host, and others) we really have no idea how much the earth has warmed over the last century. Though it is quite likely substantially less than 1 degree.

poet,
So if the US was rescuing your land from a muderous dictator who had killed hundreds of thousands of your neighbors, and in the process, ACCIDENTALLY killed your family.
You would hate the US forever?
I’m glad the VAST majority of Iraqi’s don’t suffer from your shortsightedness.
Please document where this alleged empire you keep rattling about is.

Hey Allen, long time no scenes. Too bad TCS has pretty much stopped creating new articles.

The MythBusters proved that balls stored in moist air prior to the game do not fly as far after being hit as balls that were stored in dry air.
Moist air could also affect the bat.

Global warming hoax letters to congress and UN:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_ … i-moon.pdf
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/message_to_Congress.pdf

Smokey, you’re ridiculous. Your semantic argument about the word “denialist” is BS of the highest order. It doesn’t even warrant a refutation. Your post demonstrates, once again, a strawman that skeptics love to play. AGW is not about “runaway climate change” or “cataclysmic destruction.” Just because that’s the spin that propagandists put on it doesn’t mean it has even a shred of credibility. Very few climatologists agree with Hansen’s notion that there are “tipping points” which spell certain doom for the climate and the atmosphere.
You see, what you’re doing is a mighty fine bit of handwaving. Distract everyone from the real argument at hand and replace it with some specious, ludicrous issue. You don’t actually even make an attempt to refute AGW – you propose that because the issue has become politically hyped, it must be intrinsically false. Careful, your cynicism is showing!
I think there might be a few more posts addressing me, but I’ll some them all up here:
Many of you need to do your homework before contributing to the discussion here. I usually post about the most basic topics in atmospheric science – the response I made about the Alaskan volcano is a good example, as is the premise of Arrhenius’ discerning of a “greenhouse effect.” These are basic things. We’re talking the first introductory course in Atmospheric Science, if not covered beforehand in high school physics, earth science, and chemistry courses. I strongly recommend that some of the skeptics engaging in debate with me go out and buy a college level meteorology or earth science textbook to brush up on their basics before they continue to spout ridiculous claims and arguments.
REPLY: Ok this argument about the word “denier” is over, you’ve both made your points. No more discussion on it. Now I’m going to make a pojnt, you wrote:

“Very few climatologists agree with Hansen’s notion that there are “tipping points” which spell certain doom for the climate and the atmosphere. “

Then why are they letting him get away with this garbage and not calling him out on it? A lie of omission is still a lie. Either they are a bunch of cowards afraid to refute Hansen for fear it will “hurt my position” like so many of our phantom posters who don’t put their name behind their arguments, or they let it alone because it “helps the cause”. It’s like selling insurance; the best way to get people to buy it is to make them scared of the consequences.
Either way, the lack of professional integrity is stunning, and disgusting.

If I may wander slightly OT, I see that this presentation by the four scientists engendered a response about coal and natural gas. But there was no mention of oil. This piques my curiosity in view of this latest interesting article claiming that oil is in fact NOT a fossil fuel but is created deep in the earth’s crust where calcium carbonate and iron oxide react under tremendous pressure to continuously produce oil. Curious to hear what your geologist readers think about this ‘out there’ theory.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952

AGW is not about “runaway climate change” Then what exactly is AGW about, counters? Please, give us the latest spin on exactly what AGW is (you guys keep moving the goalposts you know), and while you’re at it, your mathematical proof of it. You can’t, because there isn’t any, but go ahead and try. We keep having to remind you (you must have a short attention span) that NO ONE here disputes that there is a greenhouse effect. Got that, counters? NO ONE.

There is only one way to kill the global warming cult. Form a global cooling cult! You can’t fight fire with fire, you can only fight it ice.

DAV:
Yeah, that’s the s*** right there! Is the Hit- oh, I mean the History Channel going to show it again? If so when? Do they talk about gorebull cooling doomsday coming in the future?

Counters
Thank you for your replay, but that did not ansewer the queation.
What caused the climate change from the MWP to LIA?
Yes, a lot of volcanic activity, but majority started after temperatures started rising again.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Q: How long has it been since anyone’s seen a sunspot?

Last sunspot was a SC23 event approx 23 days ago, late last month. There were several spots last month and none so far this month.

Perhaps a more concrete description of AGW would be: “Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.”
So what we have here is a vague correlation of C02 to temperature of the past century, and the even more vague claim that C02 “should contribute” to future warming. Wow. That is alarming.
BTW, were you able to find any evidence to support your claim on the “Alleviate world hunger” thread: “I repeat, Thatcher used the [AGW] issue to gain political power, beginning in 1979.…”
I haven’t been able to find any evidence for this assertion. Perhaps you could throw some light on the matter
It is from a paper by Richard Courtney: Global Warming:
How It All Began
There are no references given, unfortunately. I have just emailed him, though, so hopefully he’ll send me something. There certainly was motive both for her and her UK party to push AGW.
His statement that “a coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than a group of conspirators. The origins of the scare are political and have resulted in political policies that now threaten serious economic damage for the entire world” seems an excellent description.

Brendan H, if you Google Margaret Thatcher AND global warming, you’ll get a whole heap of hits, including the one that Bruce referred to.

Brendan, I received a nice reply to my email to Richard Courtney regarding his paper on the history of AGW, which I’ll paste below:
” The article is a summary of the analysis I did at the time (early 1980s) for the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM). It also has a few updates I made in the late 1990s.
BACM was concerned at the potential for AGW to become as serious an environmental issue for the coal industry as ‘acid rain’ then was. Subsequently it became a more serious issue than that. My research consisted of interviews with interested parties (including Sir Crispin whom you mention) followed by evaluation of the interacting influences that I summarised as the influence diagrams that are in the article.
Three pertinent points are worth mention.
1.
The diagrams do not include environmental organisations. This is because environmentalists had not yet taken up AGW at the time I did the original analysis. Indeed, Greenpeace was then opposing AGW as being a distraction from true environmental issues.
2.
The science was (and I think still is) an adjunct to the political issue. Remove all reference to science and all the significant feedback loops remain in the influence diagrams. I concluded from this that AGW would displace ‘acid rain’ as the major environmental constraint on coal usage, and it would continue as such a constraint whether or not it was justified by any empirical scientific data. This conclusion was rejected by BACM as being so extreme as to be absurd (but it later proved correct).
3.
I have had no direct contact with Lord Monckton. He was an advisor to Mrs Thatcher at the time when she was starting the AGW scare and I did not interview any official government advisors (any answers they gave me would be restricted to stated government policy). Last year (i.e. 2007) persons other than me interogated Lord Monckton on his view of my article and he was surprisingly forthcoming. He could not breach any confidences from that period of his office, but he did not dispute anything in my article and in writing he confirmed some significant points (e.g. the role of Sir Crispin). I am surprised by the degree of his agreement with my article: people have different observations, perceptions, interpretations and memories of the same events so I would have expected some difference of opinion between us and none seems to exist.
I hope the above is what you wanted. I will not return to my base for at least a week so I am not able to access old files until then. Please let me know if you want more or different.”
He is very aware of Anthony’s excellent blog. I said a guest post on the history would be nice (hint hint).

May God bless us. Go Veg and Go Green.
Peace. Yes indeed, thank God (speaking figuratively, but if you believe that’s fine too) for C02, which helps keep our planet warm, and provides the food required for vegetation to grow and thus making our planet Green. C02 is both wonderous and wonderful. May it continue rising in abundance in the atmosphere.
Amen.

At least I didn’t get sucked into all the bullcrap flying around about Global Warming. I am too young to remember the whole “Ice Age” discussion in the 70’s, but I know history well enough to know We The People are easily manipulated into believing some pretty absurd things. Global Warming = Duped Again! Bush’s No Nation Building in 2000 = Duped Again! Obama’s Change for America will = Duped Again by 2010!

What a crock! The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years without help from us.
When are people going to recognize that their would-be controllers will use ANYTHING to tax us into submission.

Don’t you just love how all the ads by google are for helping to stop global warming? I think google needs to figure out that people who go on this site realize that global warming is a pile of garbage.