Dr. Roger Pielke Senior: support for CATO letter and advertisement

Click for full PDF

Click for full PDF

From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Climate Science Weblog

There is a letter to the President published by the Cato Institute that headlines [thanks to ICECAPand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels to alerting us to it];

“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true
.

The letter is signed by over 100 scientists.

Climate Science wants to comment on the specific statements of science in the letter which is reproduced below:

“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”

Comments by Climate Science

  • “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

This is correct using the global average surface temperature. An effective analysis of this issue has been presented at the weblog http://rankexploits.com/musings/category/climate-sensitivity/. However, using the global average upper ocean heat content changes, the warming in the 1990s and early 2000s ended in 2003, so the more rigourous metric for global warming indicated “no net global warming” for 6 years.

  • After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.

This is a correct statement which has been extensively discussed and summarized at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/category/climate-change; see also Chapter 2 in  Pielke, R.A., Jr. and R.A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their nature and impacts on society.

  • The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.

This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).

The dismissive response on Real Climate and on Grist to this letter do not provide the objective scientific rebuttal to these science claims. This is unfortunate and is misleading policymakers, but, as we have learned and reported many times on at Climate Science and elsewhere (e.g. see and see), this is the way the IPCC and CCSP community deals with solid science that disagrees with their perspective.

About these ads

252 thoughts on “Dr. Roger Pielke Senior: support for CATO letter and advertisement

  1. I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman. If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.

  2. But the science is settled and I have my new taxes ready for all to enjoy. I need them to offset the pork and foolish bailouts that I have engineered and signed.

  3. This is a perfectly legitimate approach to the problem, which like many other logical, reasonable discussions on the subject of AGW, will fail.

    Look no further than the latest budget to understand why.

    Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall. Image the president going to the democratic party and explaining that they would have to cut $1trillion in spending from the budget that HE proposed.

    As I’ve said before…AGW is a revenue mechanism for politicians. The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.

    If someone could go to the president with an alternative for funding 1/3 of his budget, I’m sure he’d be much more likely to listen. Until then?…talking to a brick wall.

    JimB

  4. Hard to believe, but I think the posts are actually getting better with each day.
    Even the tide seems to be turning a little.

    When our children and our grandchildren look back at this era, I believe that this simple blog will be recognized as VOX CLAMANTIS IN DESERTO (roughly, the Voice Crying In The Wilderness) that saved us from ourselves. Provided, of course, that the ominous threat of government censure doesn’t get any worse.

    Write your Senators and Congressman! But as important, let’s start making a conscious effort to spread the word of WattsUp. Tell your friends, tell your frenemies, text and email and tweet. Write the address on the back of your business card.

    Keep it up, Anthony. I think we are witnessing a phenomenon.

    Oh, and the sun remains devoid of sunspots. http://solarcycle24.com/
    Solar activity will remain at very low levels. Buy coal.

  5. Not being from the US, can you tell me which newspapers this was published in ?? Would be good to forward this on but would be better if I can state which newspapers its in.

  6. Even the tide seems to be turning a little.

    Well, as the sea witches know, the tide is a lagging indicator . . .

  7. Superb. I nearly chocked on my cornflakes. This really should be paid for advertising in national newspapers. Perhaps the oil lobby would step in to pay the fees? ;)

  8. I see myself as a positive person but this will not be (allowed to be) heard.

    There will be little in the way of reportage, although the MSM will take the advertising fees thank you very much. Do not expect editorial or journalistic comment. There is a new world order to uphold.

    Socialism (Marxism, Environmentalism, Envy) must prevail. Lies are merely a tool to liberate us all. The dream of taxing the very air that we, the great unwashed and irrelevant, breath has come true. The UN is the last best hope for humanity.

    Oh yeah, I knew I forgot something.

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia

  9. The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. We should have a better feel after the current European Conference concludes. Perhaps this latest effort will have some effect on restoring a modicum of sanity.

  10. OT: Anthony, there was a guest posting relating to the psychiatric community on the left promoting the idea of climate skeptics as pathologically afflicted. I believe it was on your site but have not been able to locate it and would very much appreciate a link to it.

  11. It seems that the evidence against accepted IPCC stance is being undermined more regularly now. Any thinking person will have now to question the status quo.

  12. Lets see how long it takes for the eco-terrorists to post the following;

    1) The CATO institute is not reputable and funded by big oil
    2) The scientists are (a) not scientists (b) not climate scientists (c) are tainted by research in oil/tobacco etc etc

    I’m guessing it’ll be in the first 25 posts (barring this one!)

  13. @Jim B

    Your wrote:

    “The fact that it’s been a funding mechanism for scientists goes hand in hand with this.”

    A longtime acquaintance is the head of the local University’s physics department. He’s retiring this spring and taking control of a solar panel start-up company.

    At a recent gathering he opined that his certitude about AGW is – on a scale of 1to10 . . an 11.

    He’s just received several million in grants for his company. I smiled and congratulated him. He lowered his voice and conspiratorially whispered that it probably would never be a commercial success.

    I’ve known this man for years. I sat beside him at a concert after 9/11 when he complained, before our fannies hit our chair seats – that they shouldn’t have politicized the public concert by playing the Star Spangled Banner before the performance.

    The recent election has in his words: liberated him from his wandering in the desert for 40 years.

    Now your tax money and mine must support his leftist, Utopian,
    politically-correct endeavors.

    BTW. His wife has placed her icy hands on mine we we meet for coffee. She laughs about it. Their thermostat is kept turned down so that they can brag about their low to non-existent energy bills. (solar panels)

    Give me a break.

    If they read this, I’d lose an old friendship.

    What hangs in the balance today, is more important.

  14. The threat of AGW, however unscientific, must remain a primary weapon in BO’s Marxist agenda. He will not lightly abandon his stance. In fact, he’ll probably become increasingly rigid, caught between the facts and his doomed plan to spend our way to prosperity. He is removing money from the private sector and dissipating it with great fanfare where it will do less good. This has been tried before and failed. BO’s ignorance and inexperience are a million times more dangerous than all the CO² China and India will emit this century.

  15. As others have pointed out, Obama’s lavish budget depends on “carbon tax income” to succeed — even I was shocked by that. Anyhow, Obama needs the money; hence, mere facts are not enough to stop government “carbon taxes” and other questionable “green” government activities.

  16. According to a recent article in by Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Eos Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23, about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.

  17. novoburgo (07:38:03) :

    “The CATO list of diversified and impressive scientific signatories is commendable. I truly hope that JimB (07:03:43)’s conclusion is incorrect although it is very realistic. ”

    Of course all the assignees are entitled to their opinions but as they are all retired, out of field or oil industry employees they can safely be ignored and ridiculed especially as they think CO2 is a harmless trace gas.

    Sarcasm off.

    I tire. I tire of railing against the stubborn idiocy that owns great suspicion of everything government does except this errant rubbish. The environmental movement is shooting itself in both feet with this and they are too blinded by the control it offers to see that the damage they are accumulating will last at least a generation. It won’t be a generation limited to less than 20 years by lack of clean water, medicine and electricity either. That is the truly devastating legacy of the green’s push for sustainable whatever. Too much, too soon. When the public’s disillusionment really sets in science and the eco terrorists will lose more than the rest of us put together. The money will be of little consequence.

  18. People are just too damned timid about this:
    “With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true.”
    Should read:
    “With all due respect Mr. President, that is a LIE.”

    He knows it is a lie. Lies are deliberate. Untrue…error, mistake…..LIe……deliberate.

    REPLY: For it to be a lie, Obama would have to know it to be not true. Unfortunately, he apparently believes it. – Anthony

  19. JimB (07:03:43) :”Of an estimated $2.7-3.2trillion, roughly $900billion in revenue comes from carbon credits/carbon taxes. In order to admit the truth regarding this discussion, the president would have no choice but to find an addition source of revenue to make up for the $900billion shortfall.”

    I’m afraid that Jim is correct; I mean right. A few weeks back, President Obama stated that his administration will insist on only the best science in making policy decisions. What we need to do is set up well the contrast between the good climate science and the nefarious; between what the President says and what he does.

    Perhaps it is axiomatic — that a politician will say anything that sounds good, only to do the opposite. Already he said he would end ear mark spending. What are we up to now, 9000 ear marks in the last spending bill? But on some level it is a reasonable argument and criticism to point out when a politician ascribes to a high ideal, only to abandon it at the earliest convenience out of political expediency.

  20. AGW is a funding mechanism. Always has been, always will be.
    That so many millions are duped into believing in it speaks nothing to the scientific evidence.

    Readers here have pretty much always known that, at least on some level.
    It’s also a pretty major indictment of our political parties and leadership, that they won’t look beyond a funding mechanism and their own pet projects to the “greater good”.

    Be that as it may, it won’t be changing any time soon. Politicians, successful ones at least, are masters of framing things so that they support their own devices…this is just being done on a global scale.

    Welcome to the new economy.

    JimB

  21. BTW – We’re talking about skepticism of AGW and you stumble in here with young Earth theory as a retort?

    Are you joking or brain dead? I hope the former.

  22. Aron (07:40:12) :

    “Monbiot is already on the attack

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism?commentpage=1

    Scurrilous article and Ageist.

    GM: “Half of them were old friends: David Bellamy, Pat Michaels, Martin Hertzberg, Craig and Sherwood Idso and the rest. The others are almost all either retired, not scientists, or in a completely different discipline. ”

    His reference and disgust at “all either retired” is ageist and an offence in English law. The implication that by be retired the person has no value; this is now an offence.

    GM does not mention two very brave signatories

    STEVE JAPAR, PH.D
    and
    GERD-RAINERWEBER, PH.D
    REVIEWER(s), INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    Nor does GM mention:

    CRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D
    CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL CHANGE

    nor

    JOSEPH S. D’ALEO
    FELLOW,AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY

    nor

    HARRY F. LINS, PH.D.
    CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUP

    But he does say “or in a completely different discipline. ”
    Guess GM did not read their qualifications or just did not understand them.

    Well done to all signatories.

  23. BTW (07:58:46) :

    This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

    Soooo… ad hominem is the best YOU can come up with? Look in the mirror for the joke.

    Why not make an attempt at refuting skeptics’ arguments, rather than their positions on unrelated topics.

    Mark

  24. There are sufficient “scientific” voices who have been bought in one way or another for our president to ignore any reasonable arguments for many months to come. Unfortunately, he and the Congress can accomplish many evils in that period of time.

  25. BTW (07:58:46) :
    These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:
    This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

    Is this the best you can come up with? His views on a different subject matter, no matter how incorrect, must therefore effect his views on this subject? What a joke!!

  26. Tamara

    What in recent history makes you believe that the president or congress are honest brokers?

  27. The alarmists are losing ground. They can only ignore, and pretend that the ever increasing number of scientists and evidence against them will just go away. But it won’t. And as more and more consumers face hard choices, they will ditch Global Warming in a second for their own best interest, lower heating bills, etc.

    It’s good that the Alarmists have overreached by so much, because it makes it much sooner that the whole charade will come to an end.

  28. It does not matter. Our government works best when each party has control of part of the government. When one party has control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, any agenda will pass.

  29. You are forgetting a fact: Worst than any Maunder minimum, worst than any cap and trade tax, is the worst tax ever invented: Inflation…and it is the best way to flatten social disparities

  30. G. May –

    “BTW – We’re talking about skepticism of AGW and you stumble in here with young Earth theory as a retort?

    Are you joking or brain dead? I hope the former.”

    Mark T –

    “Soooo ad hominem is the best YOU can come up with? Look in the mirror for the joke.”

    Paul S –

    “Is this the best you can come up with? His views on a different subject matter, no matter how incorrect, must therefore effect his views on this subject? What a joke!!”

    No, it’s not the best I can come up with.

    The title of this thread IS: “support for CATO letter and advertisement” and touts that “The letter is signed by over 100 scientists”. So, like it or not, it is very much on topic to take a look at the “scientists” supporting this letter.

    That Blick holds that the earth is only a few thousand years old speaks volumes to his credibility on matters of science (and BTW Paul – thats especially matters with science concerning the earth – you know, like AGW)

    One would think that if you are going to trot out a list of 100 “scientists” supporting your position, you would pick the best of the best. That your list includes “scientists” such as Blick clearly shows that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. That speaks volumes to the qulity of this list.

    So Mark – it is not an ad hominem to look at the credibility of the signatories of this list when the very title of this thread touts the credibility of the signatories.

  31. BTW (07:58:46):

    These lists you skeptics come up with get funnier each time. Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist:

    It’s not a matter of “skepticism”, but of the correct use of the scientific methodology. We’re not just “skeptics”, but scientists who know well that AGW is full of imprecision and biased flaws. Instead examining our work AGWers make use of ad hominem logical fallacies.

  32. BTW (09:58:29) :

    I fail to see your point. I’m sorry if the facts they point to undermines your religion.

  33. Flanagan (08:11:54) :

    According to a recent article in by Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Eos Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23, about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.

    Yeah, I have read this too. My question is, how many “specialists surveyed” were there? 1, 2, perhaps 3? I could not find an answer myself. Additionally, who were these “specialists”? and what makes them “specialists”? ..”specialists” of what?

    Its bunk…

  34. BTW (09:58:29) :

    No, it’s not the best I can come up with.

    Yet, that is what you offered.

    So, like it or not, it is very much on topic to take a look at the “scientists” supporting this letter.

    Again, take a look at their relevant work, not unrelated work.

    That Blick holds that the earth is only a few thousand years old speaks volumes to his credibility on matters of science (and BTW Paul – thats especially matters with science concerning the earth – you know, like AGW)

    No, it speaks volumes to his religious faith, nothing more. I don’t agree with him either on that point, but I don’t care.

    One would think that if you are going to trot out a list of 100 “scientists” supporting your position, you would pick the best of the best.

    Just because YOU don’t think they are good does not make it so.

    That your list includes “scientists” such as Blick clearly shows that you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. That speaks volumes to the qulity of this list.

    It is not my list, and they are only “bottom of the barrel” in your OPINION. My opinion is that Mann, Hansen, et al. are bottom of the barrel.

    So Mark – it is not an ad hominem to look at the credibility of the signatories of this list when the very title of this thread touts the credibility of the signatories.

    Yes, it is an ad hominem. Their credibility, in the article, is w.r.t. their knowledge of climate science, which is indisputable (to all but the likes of you).

    Mark

  35. Every time, for sake of discovery, I venture on reading either Monbiot’s column or a Desmogblog type website, every single time, I feel the chill of the “green star” -it was a yellow one back then- that soon will come upon citizens who search the scientific truth. The amount of hate mongering is simply unbelievable. If the same words were written on any ethnic group, these people would have to answer to a court of law and Human Rights violation. Obviously governments are not even concerned one bit with this kind of hate literature. This is a very disturbing and totalitarian ideology at heart and indeed, the violence will increase since Nature itself is the biggest denier of all…

  36. Briggs is probably right in some aspects, btw. I agree the tactic is similar to what the “other consensus” typically uses, i.e., “we’re right because we all agree,” which doesn’t help the case of merit. Argument by authority does not really work for them, nor should it work for skeptics.

    However, given that the “consensus” is what politicians are listening to, it can’t hurt to point out that it is actually weaker than they pretend. Ultimately, they (politicians) don’t care, and won’t care till people stop voting for them. They see an opportunity for money: $900 B is what Obama is expecting. Only the threat of losing an election will change these minds, not scientific merit nor a list of even 1000 skeptics.

    Obama does not care about the challenge in the ad, IMO. He’s already got his justification for fleecing the US taxpayers. All he does is marginalize his critics, no different than any other elected official, and ultimately, ignore them.

    Oh, and BTW, there are plenty of PhD atheists that disagree with all this nonsense, too. Many of them have even better credentials in relevant fields than “the best you can offer.”

    Mark

  37. Mike86 (06:41:55) :

    I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman. If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.

    For what it is worth, and in futility, I also have done the same —and including to the Speaker of the House for all the good it will do.

    What ever happened to “… government of the people, by the people, and for the people …”?

  38. BTW:

    Is it, without arguing the facts of the matter, logical to say that what one believes in one field is invalidated because of what one believes in another field of study? Are you really prepared to say that that is a valid way to reason? Dr. Blick co-authored “Introduction to Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer” so whatever it says in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in God. Dr. Blick authored “The 1-2-3 Engineering Math Handbook: Engineering and Scientific Numerical Calculations Using Microcomputers and Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheets/Book and Di”, but whatever he said in that book must be wrong because, after all, he believes in a young earth! Dr. Blick was a U.S. AirForce Weatherman, but he simply must have caused great havock and failed at the job because, after all, he doesn’t believe in abiogenesis! Dr. Blick was many years at the University of Oklahoma, but he couldn’t have been a competent professor since he doesn’t like pie! Do you really want to defend the logic of this approach?

    On the other hand, if you have some substantive flaw to state about his critique of AGW in “The Religion of Global Warming” or some other work, then fire away.

  39. BTW (09:58:29) :
    What does this mean?…..the planet will be saved!
    Barack Hussein Obama II (Wikipedia)

    Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

    Do you actually think China, the world’s biggest contributor of GHGs, or
    India, will follow the pied piper of progressivism? This will only hurt us!
    But hey, it will be fun to watch the poor suffer….right! [snip]

  40. Agreed with Tim McHenry.

    Why should one’s religious faith disqualify them as a scientist?? That is utter nonsense and a true ad hominem if there ever was one.

    The real religious zealots are those deacons and presbyters and acolytes in this new odd and peculiar, but powerful, new world religion: “The New International Holy Church of the Apostles of the Anthropogenic Global Warming.”

    No book-burnings or inquisition-style executions have occurred yet that we know of….

    But some of the world’s leading scientists, engineers, and intelligentsia who DARE to disagree with this new Orthodoxy, are being ostracized, marginalized, and slandered on a quite regular basis….

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA

  41. BTW

    You found one guy that you dissagree with on the list; Wow you are amazing. Can we do the same for your lists? I think that we can come up with more than one.

  42. “For it to be a lie, Obama would have to know it to be not true. Unfortunately, he apparently believes it. – Anthony”

    As a politician I know said to me. “There are 2 types of politicians. Those who know AGW is a revenue generating scam and those who are stupid”

    Hmmm. Which one is Pres. Obama?

  43. While I acknowledge no groundswell just yet, the G-20 conferences, with the Prez and 500 of his most trusted staff in attendance, is an excellent opportunity for change–a messy, inconvenient change–but an opportunity one can hope will be met by patriots of vision before approbation is guaranteed.

  44. I think the poster who states a persons religion as a pre curser to wipe thier opinion from the world, had better check out the head of the IPCC before making themselves look so silly in future…?

  45. This could be a big-time winning issue for the Republicans, if they play their cards right. For instance, if they were to call for a debate (ideally a set of multiple debates on each facet of the issue) moderated and judged by the officials of all the prestigious scientific societies that have endorsed the alarmist consensus, they’d be in a win/win position. I.e., the Republicans could make hay about the matter in the next election cycle, if the climate turns distinctly cooler, as it promises to do.

    Some realistic Democratic politicians will realize the peril they are in once they understand that there are holes in the alarmists’ case. They will see that they could lose big-time if they identify too closely with them and oppose a call for a debate within the scientific community. So some may endorse the Republicans’ call.

    Once that happens, the journalists who report on the debates will, on the whole, state that they were impressed by the skeptics’ case and personnel. This alone will be a significant achievement.

    Of course the alarmists realize this and will resist the idea of a debate. But making them dodge it would have a significant effect in the court of public opinion. So a call for a debate is a good tactic, even if it never occurs. That being the case, it’s unfortunate and politically inept that the Cato ad didn’t call for one.

    Finally, such a debate would force the scientific establishment to weigh the possible downside of their giving their blessing to a catastrophically wrong and deceptive position. It would concentrate their minds, IOW. I suspect they would no longer allow themselves to be hustled along by the evasions, bluster, ad homs, and superficially plausible rebuttals the alarmists have offered so far.

    If OTOH the scientific bodies cravenly or pig-headedly take the short-term easy course and restate their endorsement of the CAGW consensus, that too will provide a a minor bit of satisfaction for the skeptics, because they will have discredited themselves so badly that they will be voted out of office by their memberships in a couple of years.

  46. Climate AGW Alarmist blinded by self interest and self belief.

    Climate AGW Skeptic blinded by Cynicism and mistrust.

    Does it matter?

  47. here has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

    this is simply false.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend

    the TREND over a decade shows pretty strong warming.

    ——————-

    and i agree with BTW.

    a person who has written such a book

    shouldn t be on a list of scientists handling climate change.

    a person who does believe that the earth is 10000 years old can NOT understand climate change.

    sorry.

  48. gary gulrud (11:29:48) :

    “While I acknowledge no groundswell just yet, the G-20 conferences, with the Prez and 500 of his most trusted staff in attendance”

    Non non non non G19 conference! G19!!!
    Want to guess who has already taken the huff!?

    Who wants their own way or they are not playing?
    If they do not get what they want, they are walking out.

    Want a “oui” wee clue?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7974190.stm

    “If France were to leave the summit, it would be a blow to both UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President Barack Obama.”

    Well that mucks the G conference up.

  49. Never ceases to amaze, me the intellectual bankruptcy from AGW supporters. It doesn’t matter the credentials of a skeptic: those who believe AGW will never deal with the issues. This petition, as others in the past, will be treated with the same disdain from those not qualified to judge.

    I can hear the shrieks already “Oil.. oil.. OIL.. OIL!”

    The rhetoric is mind numbing.

    When will these children grow up and realize, if you really want to discredit an argument you can not resort to ad hominem attacks.

  50. OT.

    And yet another 20 day period with no sunspot activity. That makes what 6,7 such periods this minimum? Far more than any period since 1900.

  51. …the problem is that the Administration has been swayed by an entire host of “main stream” prognosticators, just like Hansen and Gore. I wrote a skeptic comment (and a nice one at that), about global sea ice, refuting some of the RealClimate.org and ClimateProgress.org blog claims and I got a rather snippy reply in my personal email box from Joe Romm (see below, addresses deleted as a courtesty).

    Joe Romm, was an assistant secretary in the DOE in the 1990s. Romm is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. And these type of people influence policy and testify in front of congressional committees because they are part of the good ol’ boy Washington clique. The question is: how do you fight back when they say “the debate is over” or “the skeptic view has been debunked”?

    When I was debating Joe Romm, this is the type of response I got:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Joe Romm [mailto:-----@americanprogress.org]
    Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 03:20 PM
    To: mikestrong@——.com
    Subject: RE: More on: Global Warming and Global Ice

    You are in tin foil hat land now. Yes, the NSIDC folks and Hadley and NASA and JPL are all lying, part of a conspiracy with the top science journals and leading scientific organizations to lie to the public. Your NASA claims are laughable. What you’re claiming that the entire organization is propagating a lie in its publications and on its website? You’d have more credibility if you were pushing solar forcing crap than the claim that the Arctic ice cap isn’t melting — decades ahead of the models — or that sea levels aren’t rising, and double what they were two decades ago. You need to move beyond the conspiracy and actually cite some peer-reviewed studies — I follow the literature closely and none of them support you. Joseph Romm Senior Fellow Center for American Progress Editor, ClimateProgress.org

    And More:

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Joe Romm [mailto:-----@americanprogress.org]
    Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:17 PM
    To: mikestrong@—-.com
    Subject: RE: Global Warming and Global Ice

    You are simply parroting long debunked global warming denier talking points. you also need to understand the distinction between a few days of local weather and decades of global climate change. Joseph Romm Senior Fellow Center for American Progress Editor, ClimateProgress.org

  52. So, what, if you don’t have a degree in “climate science” your opinion is irrelevant? Again with the ad hominems. Between you and BTW, you almost have no real argument.

    I suppose we should tell the “climate scientists” to get out of statistics, feedback control systems, and physics since, well, they aren’t any of these things either.

    Mark

  53. UK John (11:54:18) :

    Climate AGW Alarmist blinded by self interest and self belief.

    Climate AGW Skeptic blinded by Cynicism and mistrust.

    Does it matter?

    Blinded! Oh no!

    I thought it was just dark in here!

  54. DJ:
    You say: “Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.”

    Name Einstein ring any bells? Unpublished when he came up with e = mc^2. Name Wright Brothers mean anything to you? Not scientists but drop outs.

    In the world of scientific discovery, many of the greatest discoveries were not by Ph.D scientists.

    Dr. Hathaway has predicted the start of Solar Cycle 24 several times. His predictions have not come true. http://www.solarcycle24.com/news.htm. Does the fact that he has papers published on the solar cycle, mean that we should believe the cycle started way back in 2007. Does it really matter if a paper is published or not when it comes down to whether it is fact or not.

    Your argument as all who use such tactics are no less than a complete subterfuge of the truth.

  55. a person who does believe that the earth is 10000 years old can NOT understand climate change.

    I’m not going to defend creationism, but what you said is untrue. Understanding of the climate or human biology can be achieved even if one believes the world was created a thousands of years ago and Adam was a real person. Scientifically speaking it’s not ideal but is achievable.

    Has anyone cared to ask what most Alarmist’s religious beliefs are?

  56. I hate to rain on the parade, but this letter won’t make a bit of difference. It’s like a gnat to an elephant. Is it true? Absolutely. Is the President, an official member of the Alarmist Brigades, going to change one wit of his stance on global warming? Nope. The only thing that may moderate his stance is the self-preservation instinct politicians seemed to have honed to work under the economic and political pressures we face today.

  57. I see more and more data supporting the skeptic view. I see more and more urgency in the AGW Movement. I predict the G20 will put out some harsh, negative energy guidelines which they will claim to “create jobs”, even knowing they will drag down society and make more people poor and far fewer people wealthy. I feel even more strongly that Copenhagen’s UN meeting will push this agenda further – no matter what comes to light over the next 6 months. I believe the UN rub their hands and cackle, when the doors are closed, and don’t even pretend among themselves that they believe in the tripe they put out.

    My only hope, and it’s a bit wistful and doesn’t seem very likely today, is that responsible, democratic countries (whether their policies are socialist or free market) will correct those leaders that make up the balance of power today in the next elections and that this will lead to the repeal of what damaging legislation will come down in the next few years.

    Citizens are being educated to the hoax. Nature is continuing to prove unpredictable – even cooperating at the moment.

    The really sad commentary is that rational people are left hoping for cooling effects that hurt all of mankind, to reverse the progress of these scoundrels who are leading this Green Movement.

    Environmentalism, think about the word. Every sane person should be a champion of the environment. In today’s World, it stands for liars, cheats and greedy people. I don’t know that much about GreenPeace, maybe some other readers do – are they misguided or simply as corrupt and lazy as the UN?

    Sorry if I went on – sometimes it does seem that hope is far away.

    Dave

  58. So

    I like this response to this little mess…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/30/cato-institute-advert-climate-change-scepticism

    On top of that I took a look at six of those “experts”, and only the Geophyscist may have something useful to say. The creationist engineer is right out, as is the professer of Marketing, or the computer scientist.

    Really now, if the Cato institude has to cast it’s net that wide, it’s lost it already.

  59. sod (12:01:20)

    There was nothing of substance to respond to in the 2nd half of your comments, but once again the logic escapes me:

    Why Newton believed the answers to questions about the future of the earth were bound up in the BIBLE of all things, therefore we should discount all that stuff about math, physics, and other silly notions of his, eh?

  60. Barry (12:16:43) :

    How can you carry on a discussion with people who refuse to use logic?

    Reminds me of a story from the 1770’s.

    That was the time of James Hutton and the problems that he was faced with in 1770’s Scotland.

    “There are no such things as Volcanoes”, the Neptunists told him.
    He replied, “What about Etna and Stromboli?”

    “They are coal mines which are on fire”, they retorted.
    What a put down!! Coal mines on fire. Good one. Most people had seen a coal mine on fire!! Bang! Flames!!

    “Wait a minute, wait a minute, there is no coal at Etna or Stromboli.”

    “Well just shows you that the fires have burnt up all the coal.”
    “So there”.

    So how do you carry on a discussion with people who refuse to use logic, well quite simply you cannot they have a belieif they have a faith.
    They just know!!

    Hutton he produce a book “Theory of the Earth”.
    Quite a book, even today.
    Totally unreadable, trust me, but never a less quite a book.

  61. AGW alarmists are just too set in their religion. They are believers and followers, not thinkers or users of common sense. 99% of believers that I get into global warming talks with always have the same answer:

    me: so why do you believe that c02 is going to fry up the earth?
    them: i heard it on the news

    They kind of remind me of kids believing in Santa Claus. You believe because you believe anything your parents tell you. Some of us grow up and learn to research and think for ourselves.. others, well we never learn and continue to live our lives on propoganda.

  62. I would consider that the end game climate ‘done deal’ is perilously imminent politically, and urge reading the following from FoxNews last Friday

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

    In my opinion, for politicians, the validity of ‘anthropogenic climate change’ is not a priority as long as it attracts sufficient popular support -job done. It has been a successful popular distraction, the convenient all-embracing justification, not the target political goal. Much as Vroclav Klaus concludes (Blue Planet in Green Shackles). Whether a climate tax funded UN global administration would be benevolent or malevolent is for each of us to decide, but Klaus predicted freedom as an inevitable casualty.

  63. In response to BTW (07:58:46) :
    Following your recommendation, we better discard the research of Galileo and Copernicus because they also believed in a young earth. Oh, and we better call the airplanes down out of the sky — the Wright brothers believed in a young earth and anyone with such beliefs can produce neither anything useful nor anything consistent with laws of nature. And what to do about Einstein’s work given his belief in God? And perhaps we should reject anything from Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, because he believes in reincarnation.

  64. OH…. and to BTW and DJ:

    You like to pick apart people from this list who are not up to your “credible standards”.. yet you worship the Oh Mighty Goracle.. Were you people aware that Gore majored in History. He is an arts student.. An arts student is not a science student.. The majority of environmental activists are arts students. His opinion is bias. He probably signed the petition to ban dehydrogen monoxide. How can you pick apart 1 or 2 of the thousands upon thousands of skeptical scientists, but yet you praise your leader Al Gore. Hypocrites.

  65. Mike86 (06:41:55) : I wrote both of my Senators and my Congressman. If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.

    Hmm… Boxer or Feinstein decisions decisions … Sadly, for some of us writing to our Congress Critters is about as effective as banging our head on the sidewalk…

    There needs to be some kind of process to short circuit the power grab by the left via organizational infiltration and seniority districts. Parliamentary maneuvering ought not to be able to usurp representation…

  66. solenadon (12:46:14) :

    So

    I like this response to this little mess…

    Don’t you mean….Solenodon?

  67. Wow, solenadon, you’re joining the ad hominem club, how am I surprised.

    Computer scientists are the types of people that write the software for climate models, btw, so I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them.

    Again, using your obviously well founded logic, you should tell the climate scientists to stop practicing statistics as they are not statisticians, control system analysis as they are not engineers, and physics as they are not physicists. Hell, Mann flunked out of his physics program… using your logic that’s a good reason to reject him outright.

    Mark

  68. Hareyreynolds above feels are witnessing a phenomenon. I agree, we are witnessing and participating in the last throw of the dice for the green left.
    Participation is the key, not just posting comments.

    I regard this blog, and others as valuable resources for my own anti-AGW musings, we have been handed this technological tool at a desperate time, and it must be used…thanks Anthony, from New Zealand.

  69. BTW (07:58:46) : Take Edward F. Blick – this guy is a young earth creationist: [...] This is the best you guys can come up with? What a joke!

    And Einstein believed in an invisible man in the sky with a penchant for counting hairs on heads but not dice playing while Newton believed in the power of astrology.

    Look, folks have nutty religious beliefs. Attacking them based on their religion is a fool errand. Or are you asserting that all Jews, Muslims, and Christians can not be scientists? Get over it, it just makes you look like a person espousing bigoted beliefs.

    (Or maybe, on second thought, keep it up, please! given that the majority of the U.S. hold very strong religious beliefs. I don’t, but I’m married to one, and this kind of talk causes her to just go ballistic at the AGW folks. Maybe that’s the best approach. Dress up as AGW advocates and toss rocks at the religions of the world… )

  70. SOD – Really now, if the Cato institude has to cast it’s net that wide, it’s lost it already.

    Given that William Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 % of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with climate as part of their academic studies, I’m not sure this would be a fruitful path for you.

    May I suggest more focus on the message rather than the messenger as we can play that game all day which may be your goal. Distract from having to consider the message as long as possible.

  71. DJ (11:55:14) :

    Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.

    – And how many people on the IPCC panel fit into this category…….?
    Wasn’t it only ~20% !

  72. Flanagan (08:11:54) :

    According to a recent article in by Doran and Zimmermann, ‘Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change’, Eos Volume 90, Number 3, 2009; p. 22-23, about 58% of the general public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed.

    All 73 of them earth scientists.

  73. sod (12:01:20)
    …and i agree with BTW.
    a person who has written such a book

    shouldn t be on a list of scientists handling climate change.
    a person who does believe that the earth is 10000 years old can NOT understand climate change.

    Apparently sod, you and “BTW” either don’t understand the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument, or are merely pretending to. In any case, here, for your edification is the wicki definition:

    “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

    The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”

  74. DJ (11:55:14) :

    Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.

    There is no significant human induced climate change to publish a paper about.

    Many in top positions on the IPCC have no qualification or expertise in climate either.

  75. “DJ (11:55:14) :

    Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.

    Perhaps someone here might cull the list to those who have actually taken the time to contribute to the science in recent years. A handy place to start is …”

    Amazing. You can pretty much tell when an article is considered “dangerous” by your side, because the troll activity increases significantly.

    I don’t think that either you or BTW want to try and trade Kooks, because frankly, your side isn’t looking so hot either.

    Have either of you explained why Hansen won’t release his algorithms for temp adjustments?
    Mann? Steig?
    Doesn’t that bother you in the least bit?…and if the answer is no, then we know that you really have no interest in the science itself.

    So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.

    JimB

  76. “D. King (12:31:23) :

    UK John (11:54:18) :

    Climate AGW Alarmist blinded by self interest and self belief.

    Climate AGW Skeptic blinded by Cynicism and mistrust.

    Does it matter?

    Blinded! Oh no!

    I thought it was just dark in here!”

    Yes, it matters greatly.

    JimB

  77. I don’t see where Mr. Blick’s religious views matter. Now if BTW would care to offer a reasonable critique of Blick’s work on heat transfer and fluid mechanics, I would be willing to take the time to read it and see if there is anything to it. (I won’t hold my breath.)

  78. The games played by DJ and BTW really boil down to who can toss an inflamatory post on WUWT and get the most responses. Neither has made a point since they appeared, and are not likely to, as it’s not their intent or purpose.

    School yard challenges, and “mine’s bigger than yours”. Fun for a time, but requires more and more tequila to find any enjoyment as time goes on.

    JimB

  79. Mike86 (First commenter): “If there was ever a time for a grass-roots movement, now is it.”

    I agree. A surprising number of people are uninformed and uncommitted to either side of this issue. I don’t know what the reason for this is, but I strongly hope that friendly persuasion and non-didactic education will ultimately move them.

    To see how easily this can be accomplished, I’d recommend the two Intelligence Squared (IQ2) debates on climate change. These, as far as I know, have offered the only two honest, head-to-head debates on this issue.

    Last year’s audience-polled debate, on the resolution “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, can be viewed here at Michael Crichton’s website.

    http://crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part8.html

    Pitted against each other were (for the affirmative) Philip Stott, Michael Crichton and Larry Lindzen against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel (for the negative). Pre- and post-debate polling of the studio audience showed an interesting and significant shift of positions.

    For Against Undecided
    Before: 30% 57% 13%
    After: 46% 42% 12%

    This year’s debate (I believe it was held in February) , on the topic, “Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money”, yielded the following pre- and post-debate figures:

    For Against Undecided
    Before: 16% 49% 35%
    After: 42% 48% 10%

    The outcomes of these public debates suggest to me that a little information can go a long way in helping people see the light. Even now, people are still being guided by the sentiments (primarily fear and self-righteousness) generated by the mainstream media and politicians. Merely hearing some opposing views is sufficient to disabuse many of their AGW opinions.

    Sorry if the IQ2 debates were already mentioned. I haven’t been able to keep pace with all the threads here lately.

  80. JimB (14:16:46) :

    So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.

    JimB

    Boxer, on the Senate floor, just had her Cap and Trade
    amendment voted into law.

    They have no interest in transparency Jim!

  81. There is a good reason people would lob an ad hominem argument rather than a legitimate argument.

    Mark

  82. JimB (07:03:43)

    Can you give me a source for your 900 billion? I just looked at the federal budget and could not seem to find it.

    As for the young earth creationism, I’d have to agree that it speaks volumes on a person’s scientific judgment. It is not a religious belief to try and argue that the earth is young, and there are plenty of “scientists” who try and make “scientific arguments” for a young earth. The evidence is so over-whelming that the earth is quite old, its hard to believe that a SCIENTIST could believe otherwise.

    I can understand the lay person, but not a scientist. Also, for the comparison to newton, we know A LOT more about geology today then we did in Newton’s time.

    Call it ad hom if you want, but I don’t think merely having a PhD in some sort of science field qualifies you to be an expert on climate science. I know, that having degrees in geology certainly does not make me a climate expert, but I can recognize good science when I see it.

    Ben

  83. Thanks, Sod, for your reference. Now I understand how there is still “global warming” even though the temperature is going down. It makes perfect sense, true?

  84. Mark (08:33:26) :

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/team-of-climate-sceptics-invited-to-un-copenhagen-conference/

    “Mr Ki-moon said, “They will provide an important counterpoint. We will be making important decision at Copenhagen, decisions that will impact on all the world’s citizens, it is important we discuss and debate the underlying scientific theories, otherwise we could be working from a weak foundation.””

    They must see the potential for money on the ‘skeptics’ side. That’s the only reason I can see for this change of heart.

    But maybe I’m jaded.

  85. Some, of those who follow this, and similar, blogs, have contacted their elected representatives to tell them that they have serious doubts about the soundness of the empirical and theoretical evidence that underpins the case for AAGW (Apocalyptic, Anthropogenic Global Warming).

    Some appear less than delighted with the reply that they may, or may not, receive.

    To aid future historians with their study of our current, and highly interesting, times may I make a suggestion that a web-site be created, if not already done so, that concentrates, categorizes and, consequently, archives, party by party, politician by politician, word by word, unequivocal time-stamped correspondences!

    Perhaps, the political recognition of the dangers posed by AAGW and the environmental, cultural and fiscal measures needed to combat such dangers, may turn out to be the most far-sighted contribution to the well-being of our planet and its denizens since the Earl of Sandwich made the teleconnection with sliced bread and invented the Wellington boot!

    Maybe or maybe not.
    I suspect that if AAGW turns into a giant finger-pointing, blame-diverting exercise that legions of defecting politicians will resort to a Nuremburg defense along the lines of “But the IPCC told us- as did NASA- and all those scientists said…Even the POTUS himself! We only were obeying orders”

    Don’t let them weasel out of it. Tell them that an alternative viewpoint not only exists but is gaining momentum; they can’t hide behind the umbrella of misled ignorance. Let them answer or not- but document their reactions when you expose their disinterest in that the Science is far from settled! They are politicians- they are part of History- and, like all of us- they crave to be well-remembered.

    Maybe strap-lines for such a site could be:

    “Didn’t the alarm bells go off in your head when Global Warming changed into Climate Chaos?”

    “When the US government came up with a near-trillion Dollar invention and they didn’t patent it- why didn’t you ask a question, or two?”

    Or, and maybe a wee bit below the belt.

    “What did you do in the Climate Wars, Daddy?”

    Any one out there, philanthropically disposed, concerned sufficiently and able enough, to take this on?
    Just a wee thought!

  86. Wow! is this the first sign of an a**e covering exercise by Gavin.

    [Response: The only scientist I can find that has ever said the ’science is settled’ is…… Patrick Michaels (last paragraph). You will not find such a statement made in any post on RC. - gavin]

    Alan

  87. Was this letter only intended for the President? Or, could it be placed on the front page at Yahoo in one of the advertising spaces, preferably the large one on the right side near the top?

    I would contribute to that.

  88. Benjamin P. (15:15:23):

    Call it ad hom if you want, but I don’t think merely having a PhD in some sort of science field qualifies you to be an expert on climate science. I know, that having degrees in geology certainly does not make me a climate expert, but I can recognize good science when I see it.

    I find invalid your argument. Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian priest (a creationist) and had not a PhD in Genetics. However, the laws he discovered are valid up to date. Besides, he’s called the “father of Genetics”. :)

  89. Benjamin P. (15:15:23) :

    but I can recognize good science when I see it.

    Then consider the man’s relevant science, rather than his irrelevant nonsense. I would consider that a solid understanding of fluid dynamics would certainly be relevant to climate science, as would a solid understanding of the concepts of software modeling, or statistical signal processing, or physics… understand? Most “climate scientists” are not actually “climate scientists” in the first place.

    Mark

  90. Antonio San (10:34:38) : Every time, for sake of discovery, I venture on reading either Monbiot’s column or a Desmogblog type website, every single time, I feel the chill of the “green star”

    It’s good to see that Monbiot’s respondents are demolishing him more and more; yet he hasn’t apparently noticed.

  91. DJ (11:55:14) : Many on that list have no qualification or expertise in climate and many have never published a science paper relevant to human induced climate change.

    So a brain only works if it has specific indoctrination, no cross discipline study is valid. How may AGW alarmist studies that that torpedo? OK, what are the specific climate qualifications and expertise of Dr. Hansen and Mr. Gore? (Other than Hansen having writting some particularly horrid GIStemp code…)

    And what quantity of dead trees are required to make a brain functional? Just wondering how many I have to go cut down to make my poor brain have merit in your eyes…

    Perhaps someone here might cull the list to those who have actually taken the time to contribute to the science in recent years.

    Oh Dear! Apparently brains expire if not published. Golly. How many peer reviewed scientific papers has Mr. Gore done with his science PhD.? What, he doesn’t have one? Oh deary me…

    So exactly what short list of hand picked “peers” is valid by having exactly the “right” degrees and exactly the “right” number of dead trees with exactly the “right peer” approvals in exactly the “right” period of time? And while your at it, exactly when did Ensteins work expire so we can “cull” him from the list of worth scientists? After all, he spent his last days at Princeton making comedy movies… surly that means he must be expunged from the list of the skilled…

    This combined sideways ‘ad hom’ wrapped in a slanted appeal to authority of yours is a pretty poor excuse for clarity of thought. Maybe we ought to apply your requirements to you to determine the validity of your opinion? Hmmm?

  92. Whatever SOD’s personal beliefs, and whether he knows it or not, he makes a valid point.

    CATO, in retaining and publishing Professor Blick’s signature, diminishes the impact of the letter. It has allowed the alarmists to attack Blick’s creationist writings rather than discuss or debate the message in the letter.

    I personally am disappointed in Dr. Michaels for not catching this.

  93. solenadon (12:46:14) : engineer is right out, as is [...] the computer scientist.

    So the entire AGW thesis rests on some lousy temperature data processed by computer into data food product then run into computerized fantasy models, but a computer scientist is not qualified to have an opinion? You actually believe that?

    The mind boggles at the capacity for self deception among the AGW tribe.

  94. Tim McHenry (10:58:30) :

    Well said. And as for Dr. Blick’s beliefs about things that are nonobservable and nonrepeatable, that falls outside the realm of operational science. I’m sure that this will be a hard concept for BTW to grasp, but etiology does not equal science. The question of origins is forensic, not scientific.

  95. Mike Strong quoted Joe Romm as deriding:
    “… the claim that the Arctic ice cap isn’t melting — decades ahead of the models — or that sea levels aren’t rising, and double what they were two decades ago. You need to move beyond the conspiracy and actually cite some peer-reviewed studies — I follow the literature closely and none of them support you.”
    –Joseph Romm Senior Fellow Center for American Progress Editor, ClimateProgress.org

    1. Regarding the Arctic ice cap, see section 3.2 (pages 38-41), “Sea Ice in the Arctic Ocean,” of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper, “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF):

    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

    He writes, on p. 40: “the satellite data show a much steeper decline than all the model results. Since the models take into account the observed amount of CO2 during the observation period, it is interesting to speculate that some processes other than the CO2 greenhouse effect must have been in progress that are not considered or not properly taken into account in GCMs.”

    And on p. 38: “The recent rapid retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, particularly in 2007, is partly caused by the inflow of warm North Atlantic (Karcher et al., 2003; Polyakov, 2006) and North Pacific (Shimada and Kamoshida, 2008) waters into the Arctic Ocean and also the effects of winds and currents. Figures 12a and 12b show results of the ocean monitoring effort by an international group led by the International Arctic Research Center. It was shown by Polyakov (2006) that this inflow is a quasi-periodic phenomenon, as shown in Figure 12c. This warm water was melting sea ice from the bottom until 2007, but sea temperature in 2008 was significantly colder than in 2007 (Polyakov, 2008). Thin ice tends to break up easily by stormy water and is then easily forced to flow by winds and currents. This was exactly what happened in the fall of 2007.”

    His 2006 reference to Polyakov is to a private communication. Here are his bibliography entries (pp. 51-53) for three Polyakov papers, as well as the Karcher and Shimada entries:

    ” Karcher, M., R. Gerdes, F. Kauker, and C. Köberle (2003), Arctic warming: Evolution and spreading of the 1990s warm event in the Nordic seas and the Arctic Ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 108, C2, 3034, doi:10.1029/2001JC001265.

    Polyakov, I.V., G.V. Alekseev, R.V. Bekryaev, U. Bhatt, R.L. Colony, M.A. Johnson, V.P. Karklin, A.P. Makshtas, D. Walsh, and A.V. Yulin (2002), Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(18), 1878.

    Polyakov, I., et al. (2007), Observational program tracks Arctic Ocean transition to a warmer state, EOS, 88, 398.

    Polyakov, I.V., V.A. Alexeev, G.I. Belchansky, I.A. Dmitrenko, V.V. Ivanov, S.A. Kirillov, A.A. Korabley, M. Steele, L.A. Timokhov, and I. Yashiyaev (2008), Arctic Ocean freshwater changes over the past 100 years and their causes, J. Climate, 21, 364.

    Shimada, K., and T. Kamoshida (2008), Mechanism on further catastrophic reduction of arctic sea ice: influence of oceanic change, Drastic Change under the Global Warming (ISAR-1 held in Tokyo 4–6 November, 2008).”

    2. Sea level rise: Akasofu deals with this in section 2.3, Sea Level (pp. 32-34). He writes:

    “A recent study of sea level changes is shown in Figure 10a (Holgate, 2007). During the period of his study, Holgate noted that the rate of sea level rise was about 1.7 mm/year. The sea level change should reflect the expected rise associated with the thermal expansion of seawater (which depends on the depth) and glacier melting during the last half century. Although the data cover only the period after 1907, this coverage is sufficient to find the absence of accelerated sea level increase after 1946. In fact, comparing the slope between 1907–1960 and 1960–2000, there occurred even a slightly smaller gradient (1.4 mm/year) in the latter period. Figure 10b shows a satellite study of sea level changes (Nerem and Choe, 2008; Mitchum and Chambers, 2008). After increasing from 1993, the sea level rise began to decrease after 2004. Pilke (2008) showed that the heat content of the oceans has been decreasing from 2004.

    “Figure 10c shows the global sea level from 1800 (the upper diagram) and its rate of change (the lower diagram). It is clear that the sea level began to increase in about 1850 and continued almost linearly to the present, approximately with the same rate as that which is shown in 10a (see also Jevrejeva et al., 2006, 2008), namely 100 years before 1946. The rate of increase/decrease during the 1920–1960 period will be discussed in Section 3; it should be noticed also that the increase during that period was much more noticeable than that after 1975; see Section 3 and Figure 16.”

    Here are his bibliographical entries for three of the references cited above (two of them he forgot to list!):

    Holgate, S.J. (2007), On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L01602.

    Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J.C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C09012, doi:10.1029/2005JC003229.

    Jevrejeva, S., J.C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P.L. Woodworth (2008), Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, 08715.doi:10,1029/2008 GL033611.

    Here is a link to a recent Watts Up thread, “Despite popular opinion and calls to action, the Maldives are not being overrun by sea level rise”, at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=maldives

    Here is a link to a recent (March 28, 2009) article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph, “Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told'”, at:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html&ei=tbLSSYXBMZGusQOop4XoCQ&sig2=g17TgETsVO03WiOVYooCbA&usg=AFQjCNFTT8eMtKSMEDZuNPQvF4VWZ4mpHQ

  96. D. King (13:05:14) :
    “solenadon (12:46:14) :”

    Don’t you mean….Solenodon?

    Chuckle! Reminds me of a song… what was it?… “What a difference ad A makes!” something like that… ;-)

  97. sod-a person who doesn’t understand what a smooth does has no business snarking around acting smarter than other people:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641

    The fact that you were being so thick and refusing to see where you were wrong shows how deep your thought processes go.

    Regarding your claims about the trend it says OVER a decade-since 99 trend isn’t what they mean, so strawman lies dead, the claim still stands. You can do better than that, right?

  98. The implication of the Cato letter is basically that “things will be o.k.” When is the last time anyone saw a media piece touting “normal” or “O.K.”? That kind of message has no place in a blizzard of “grab ‘em by the lapels” stories such as “Single virgin ejects eight babies into startled physicians lap!” or “We’re all going to burn up and die!”

    What is needed to compete with Gore’s and Hansen’s death-grip on the news media is a statement by 100 concerned scientists that “The sun is dying and we’re all going to freeze to death!” Once the media’s imagination is properly aroused, a plathora of stories will burst forth with lives of their own: “California directly in glacier path to Mexico!” “Scientific studies show New York Harbor to be left twenty feet above sea level!” “Prince Charles says we’re at a ‘tipping point’ with only 90-days left to begin burning more coal before all is lost!” “Dr. James Hansen warns windmills are ‘death fans’!”

  99. Re: D. King (11:04:55) :

    “Do you actually think China, the world’s biggest contributor of GHGs, or
    India, will follow the pied piper of progressivism?”

    They wont have to – they will be forced to comply by big brother. From what I hear this administration and others signed up to Kyoto Mk II are pushing to place a “dirty tax” on imports from such countries.

    See http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Sarkozy_backs_carbon_tax_on_imports_999.html

    and http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52M70S20090323

    This is protectionism pure and simple. In my view it is also stealing from the poor (developing world) to give to the brainwashed rich (countries willing to sign up to Kyoto Mk II). How dare we impose our false doctrines on countries that are only starting to pull themselves out of abject poverty, fueled by Energy, Medicine and Technology.

    But no, the UN, IPCC, Al Gore et al. say “repent for your CO2 sins”, take 40 lashes (taxes) for believing in the great satan “natural variability”. And we all say “Baaa” and “yeess master”.

  100. JimB (14:16:46) : Have either of you explained why Hansen won’t release his algorithms for temp adjustments?

    In preparation for the inevitable “But the code is published!”: Yes, the code is published. I’ve got it and I’m working through it (though I just had to take a few weeks off to let my brain recover from the gag reflex…)

    The GIStemp code is clearly intended to be run by hand. It is not production quality and does not have a scripted, repeatable, controlled execution. At many points key parameters are either passed into the code (and not documented as to what values are used; you are left to hope it is the default) or the comments encourage the user to hand edit the executable code to run the parts they want to run as desired.

    Thus the code publication, while a good step, is not adequate to state that the algorithm has been published. For example, ought the reference station used in “the reference station method” be inside 1000 km? or 1200 km? or 10 degrees? Each is used at some point in the code as the default, but is coded so as to be easily overridden during manual execution. (That is, it is a ‘passed parameter’ and there is no controlling script doing the passing so you can make it what you want. Thus changing the output as desired. )

  101. deadwood (16:27:18) :

    Maybe you should put the beliefs of alarmists scientists under the microscope.

    For example, here’s something James Lovelock has to say :

    “…homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased Gaias range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.”

    ~Sir James Lovelock, “Gaia: A New Look At Life”

  102. “D. King (14:48:02) :

    JimB (14:16:46) :

    So instead of playing “lets pick out the nutjob on your side” games, lets talk about true transparency in science.

    JimB

    Boxer, on the Senate floor, just had her Cap and Trade
    amendment voted into law.

    They have no interest in transparency Jim!”

    My point exactly, but my comment was directed towards the trolls, not the politicians.

    JimB

  103. If someone could go to the president with an alternative for funding 1/3 of his budget, I’m sure he’d be much more likely to listen. Until then?…talking to a brick wall.

    JimB

    If someone would back a plan to revitalize the railroad, modernize a clean-coal tech steam engine, the savings realized from cutting down on imported oil, increased tax revenue from new jobs (you have to transfer the cargo to local transport from rail), the reduced cost of transport reflected in the economy, and if that person had access to the President, there are far better ways to achieve the goals he has than taxing the bejezus out of what will become the American Peasantry.
    As always, the consumer will pay, and pay dearly. So will the economy when it comes to this massive Energy Tax. If you think high fuel costs this past summer were bad, wait until this 2-headed monster is unleashed (Cap & Trade).
    There are many different ways to recover this Economy. Cap & Trade is akin to mooning a speeding Van. The science of it is in the carnage generated.

  104. Benjamin P:
    Rueters has run pieces claiming that it’s $650Billion:
    “WASHINGTON, Feb 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s estimate of $646 billion in revenue for the first years of a carbon-capping program to curb climate change is realistic or possibly a little low, policy analysts said on Thursday.”
    Some analysts say that”s low, some say it’s high.

    JimB

  105. D. King wrote:
    “Boxer, on the Senate floor, just had her Cap and Trade
    amendment voted into law. “

    Napoleon enters Moscow.

    (They’ll win and win until they lose.)

  106. Cathy (15:29:41) :

    Must watch video with accompanying essay on the symbolic dimming of civilization during Earth Hour:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6970.html#

    LOL at the helicopter filming the lights going out on Christ the Redeemer.

    Reply: I’ve flown around that statue in a helicopter tour but with much less grand visions of purpose. ~ charles the moderator

  107. agw has as much chance of being stopped as Rick Waggoner has of getting his job back.
    Jesus Christ could come back and say agw is not true and obama would ignore it.

  108. To: Roger Knights (16:41:33) : Thank You! Thank you. I forwarded your citings to Mr. Joe Romm…a person who, I hope, can gain a bit of education with facts, not just mainstream media hype based upon Hansenism and the Book of Goracle. I also hope the next time folks of his ilk and their websites, will tone down the the AGW “facts” and present BOTH sides. RealClimate and ClimateProgress should at least publish the reasonable skeptic comments rather than snipping them out-of-hand, regardless of merit of an argument.

    Furthermore, I urge everyone to know the opposition: I am amazed by the underlying tones of RealClimate.org and ClimateProgress.org . They keep saying the “debate is over” (when we all know there wasn’t ever a debate. The alarmists refuse to debate anyway). And I am particularly annoyed when AGW folks say the skeptics (many of us) are using arguments that have been “debunked a long time ago”. I am sorry, science is never debunked, it merely gets more and more exact, and more conclusive after scrutiny of data, observation and review.

    We all know the history of scientific “consensus”. Flat earth, junk DNA, pandemics, E=MC2, etc. We are still working on string theory, the benefits of vitamins… and my local forcaster STILL can’t get my San Diego weather correct for more than a day at a time.

    Keep the facts coming about Urban Heat Islands, Icecaps recovering, oceans cooling. One day, President Obama will listen and Gore can go back to inventing IPv7.0 for the Internet.

  109. This s Open Letter to President Obama from 100 scientists provides a prudent perspective.

    Accommodation promises to be much less expensive than trying to control climate. CO2 was much higher in prehistoric time, causing lush vegetation. Increasing CO2 will benefit feeding the world’s rapidly growing population.

    The critical issue facing us in the near future is to provide alternative fuels fast enough to accommodate 10%/year reduction in available oil EXPORTs, caused by Peak Oil combined with rapid domestic growth in oil exporting countries.

  110. deadwood (16:27:18) :

    you fall for BTW and sod’s line of reasoning. If not Bilk, then some other name on the list would be brought up. They would never be satisfied because they don’t admit the fallacy in their reasoning. The point is not that any scientists beliefs on anything are off limits to discussion, or that they are right or wrong in those beliefs. The point is that it is not germain to this present discussion and adds nothing substantive to it. The only substantive argument made was by sod in the graph that only looked at THIS decade, not this decade compared to LAST decade. Many have pointed out the issue of starting dates on the cooling/heating trend.

    Bart Nielsen (16:40:42)
    Thanks.

  111. Roger Knights (18:04:08) :

    Napoleon enters Moscow.

    (They’ll win and win until they lose.)

    Yes……Yes slow and painfully!

    Too funny Roger!

  112. I think the CATO institute is a political agenda driven organization and I believe that it causes more harm then good in the explaining of real true science about the farce that is AGW. Most who are politically driven in the opposite leaning will use this as ammunition to discredit skeptics scientists and non believers even if they have nothing to do with CATO.
    CATO have alterer motives to discredit Obama and will over shadow any rational thinking of the reader and truth.

    I did get on a talk radio show today. Talking to two chemists who were on about CO2 emissions and the food we eat. Like which foods cause more CO2 and about changing our life style with alternative foods…. turns out Kangaroo is the best for low CO2 impact.
    I guess I’ll have to move to Australia to make that happen, but I digress into absurdity.
    I asked how they thought that CO2 had such a big impact as a green house gas when water vapor makes up over 95% of greenhouse gases on our planet, and how did the CO2 that is almost three times heavier than air get up in the atmosphere? They laughed at me and said “why yes water vapor is the biggest GHG, but that the CO2 blows up there and holds the heat. I then asked, how it is possible that levels of CO2 can be going up when the temperatures observed are going down? They had no reply and I was cut off with a commercial.

    We all have to take it on ourselves to speak up about this anytime we hear the AWG propaganda. I know it doesn’t make you popular, but I’ve had a few converts and it only takes a few to start real debate about this subject. I’ve spent almost 5 years on the Internet every day goggling and battling global warming scare mongering and misinformation on blogs. Worked it out and have come to my own beliefs and conclusions based on the knowledge we know from old school physics, paleontology and natural uncomplicated scientific reasoning.
    Unfortunately ALL sciences are in abysmal shape and the status quo have discovered computer models and no science is practiced anymore. Just modeled conclusions that can’t be proven and most of the time wrong.

    You soon realize that knowledge and understanding ( CO2 as a pollutant..W(wtf)UWT?!) of old school science is being lost or manipulated going against everything I’ve ever heard/been taught in science. About the laws of thermodynamics and earths evolvement(hehe, a new word!) with our birth from the sun and species from the beginning.

    Anywho, I thought I was the only one venturing into the rabbit hole so deep,
    … beyond the matrix to find http://www.climateaudit.org/ , then http://www.surfacestations.org/ and final here!
    This is the only play you can come and read about real science, real data, real scientists and ALL the people are involved and can get a laymans understanding of science. Were you can read a contrary opinion on climate subjects right next to a believers, and away from MSM rhetoric , political hyperbola or pseudo religious warmers blaspheming/deleting your opinion/thought with no scientific proof or reason at all.

    Sadly, this letter is not a victory.

  113. The full page ad appeared in Monday, March 30th Los Angeles Times in the front section. Anthony, your good friend Jim Goodridge’s name is there.

    REPLY: Yes I noted that. I had an opportunity to put my name there also, but given that there was limited space, and I knew Jim would sign, I wanted to make certain that he got the opportunity. As former State Climatologist, his presence was far more important than mine. I reach more people through WUWT anyway. – Anthony

  114. “E.M.Smith (13:33:54) : And Einstein believed in an invisible man in the sky with a penchant for counting hairs on heads but not dice playing ”

    This is off beam E.M.

    Talk like this doesn’t make Einstein look bad. But it might you.

  115. “Lance (19:42:13) : Sadly, this letter is not a victory.”

    Gee Lance, put on a happy face, would ya!

  116. Paul S: “BTW (09:58:29): I fail to see your point.”

    The CATO advertisement seeks to persuade the reader to a particular point of view on the basis of a list of named scientists. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.

    An ad hominen argument attempts to undermine a claim by introducing an unrelated claim. In the present case, the issue is the credibility of the names. Therefore, any claims about the names on the list are not ad hominen.

    On the matter of young-earth creationism, since the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and YEC believes in a 10,000 year-old earth, a young-earth creationist is heavily compromised when making statements on earth science.

    Further, YEC is not just a religious belief. It is a claim to scientific knowledge. Therefore, anyone who espouses young-earth creationism is making a scientific claim, and can be judged on scientific criteria.

  117. Benjamin P & JimB:

    On the question of the economic impact of climate policies in the budget.

    The primary source document reference is:

    Page 123, Table S-6 of the proposed budget lists “Total Climate Revenues” (2010-2019) as $645.7 billion. The description of those revenues is described in the footnotes on page 129 (Cap and Trade).

    But this is only the direct revenue specifically associated with Cap and Trade. Scattered throughout the budget are other climate specific “fees” which, when added to the $645.7 Cap and Trade figure come to roughly a $900 billion economic impact.

    That’s how commentators are coming up with the $900 billion figure.

  118. Brendan H (22:35:16)

    It IS ad hominem if it is not on the same topic as piece they are signing. You attempted to show that the criticism was on target by saying that what someone believes about a past, non-repeatable, non-observable event is germain to a discussion of present temp. readings and testable near-future models! It’s once again like saying that Einstein could not be qualified to speak on General Relativity because he believed in the God of Spinoza! If you want to discredit Blick or any other signer then you must discredit their work and comments on AGW!!

  119. Lets back your graph up one year and try it again.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend

    See I can cherry pick start dates as well :).

    you can NOT cherry pick, what a decade is. 10 years. period.

    “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

    this is NOT ad hominem. this “beliefs” have an effect on the subject that we are discussing.

    sod-a person who doesn’t understand what a smooth does has no business snarking around acting smarter than other people:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2641

    The fact that you were being so thick and refusing to see where you were wrong shows how deep your thought processes go.

    this is way of topic, but i was right with my critisism of the Loehle paper. he had to completely change his paper, and it does now contain ZERO information about a comparison to modern temperature.

    Regarding your claims about the trend it says OVER a decade-since 99 trend isn’t what they mean, so strawman lies dead, the claim still stands. You can do better than that, right?</i

    please educate me. what did they mean?

    you fall for BTW and sod’s line of reasoning. If not Bilk, then some other name on the list would be brought up.

    it is an onvious problems with all those lists. there are simply only very few scientists who support your side, so you are always forced to include pretty weird people into any list, to make the support seem stronger.

    . The only substantive argument made was by sod in the graph that only looked at THIS decade, not this decade compared to LAST decade. Many have pointed out the issue of starting dates on the cooling/heating trend.

    i have serious doubts, that last decade was colder than the one before. do you have some numbers?

  120. CATO Rawks! I hope they keep up the good work and more people start to listen to them.

  121. We are at an impasse. Some obviously think that a persons beliefs MUST impact their work in a bad way. Why they believe this is beyond me. Reality is that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, and people of every philosophical persuasion all work and prosper in various scientific fields every day. If their beliefs are interfering with what they do, then it will come out in the work they produce! It is that work and comments about it and it alone that are germain to the discussion. If you want to talk about other matters, then let’s make a thread on it or find a blog on it and go at it.

  122. MattB (06:28:48) :

    “David Bellamy? Was this list put together without enough time to get better than Bellamy?”

    There are few people involved with this sham who hold more respect with the public than this man. Amongst the first to stand up and point out the utter lack of science and the total swamp of politics this issue brings, he has been attacked, smeared and had his livelihood trashed because he had the temeriity to point out that all the “relevant authorities”, such as the Royal Society, that the warmista labour on and on and on about are ALL tools of agenda and have become corrupt influences.

    No-one had more right to point this out. No-one has shown more courage in the face of the assault. No-one has lost more as a result of exposing the lies and downright terror tactics of those who would rule us totally and disinform us utterly.

    I suppose my amswer to you would be, even if they spent a year searching they would be hard pressed “to get better than Bellamy”.

  123. “It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.”

    Two words: Al Gore

    A few more words from Al himself:

    “EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: I graduated from Harvard in 1969 with a B.A. in Government. After graduating, I enlisted in the United States Army. I returned and attended Vanderbilt School of Religion (1971-72) and Vanderbilt School of Law (1974-76). ”

    http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may162000/guide/dem/pres/gor.htm

  124. @JLKrueger (01:03:52) :

    Thanks for that. So its over a decade, and not a single budget as JimB made it appear in his comment.

    I knew 900 Billion for a single budget seemed a bit off the mark.

    @ Nasif Nahle (15:33:50) :

    Using old scientist as evidence for scientists who where creationist but still did good science is apples and oranges. Almost everyone back in the day was a pretty devote religious person. The thing is, we know SO much more about the Earth and the origins of the earth and universe today.

    I find it absolutely absurd for folks who claim to be scientists to hold a YEC view of the world. Even more so when trying to speak on climate science.

    How can a person speak on climate when they think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Sure, he may understand fluid dynamics, but what must be his thoughts on some of our oldest ice cores? The power of God made them look older? Or was it the devil trying to trick us?

    That does not seem like standard reasoning and objectivity one needs when approaching science. The problem with creationism is the “scientist” has an answer and is looking for the evidence. Like many on both sides of the climate debate, here on this blog, and on other blogs boasting the opposite view.

    Ben

  125. Just Want Truth… (17:29:54) :
    Tim McHenry (19:09:29) :

    Unless someone has begun using my alias as a sock puppet you will find that my comments on this and other science sites are decidedly on the side of climte realism.

    The point I make above is that Dr. Blick’s views have made him the target of the warmers, thus sucessfully allowing the subject to be changed, and the CATO message diminished.

    This in no way legitimizes the tactics used by the warmers. I simply state the facts.

    The Ad Hominim attack is and will likely remain thepreferred rhetorical tool of the warmers and it remains dishonest. But giving the warmers ammunition for such attacks does not help further the debate (or win).

  126. @Burch Seymour (07:27:09) :

    I don’t think the Goreacle ever claimed to be a scientist though? And he certainly did not sign a list of “Scientists” to try and make a point one way or another.

    Thats the difference. The CATO folks are ideologues and have little interest in the climate debate beyond the politics. They tossed up a list of scientists and we are all supposed to go, “Oh and Aw, look at all those names they must be right” like this fantasy idea that concensous means anything.

    I find it ironic that folks here are happy to cheer this “consensus” list and then dog on consensus if someone says something like “97% of scientists believe that man is effecting climate”

    Ben

  127. Benjamin P. (08:14:57) :
    I find it ironic that folks here are happy to cheer this “consensus” list and then dog on consensus if someone says something like “97% of scientists believe that man is effecting climate”

    I find it humorous that you completely miss the point. It’s not about this being a consensus. It’s about the simple fact that this busts the myth of your consensus (your silly 97% figure). Read a little deeper, Benjamin.

    Mark

  128. Benjamin P. (08:14:57) :

    @Burch Seymour (07:27:09) :

    Thats the difference. The CATO folks are ideologues and have little interest in the climate debate beyond the politics.

    Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong. For example, you could start by the failure of AGW predictions.

  129. deadwood (08:08:48) :

    You are 100% correct, deadwood. Even this late in the thread, folks such as Benjamin P hypocritically tout the ad hominem as some sort of proof the guy is wrong, while failing to address what Blick is actually known to be good at. Why? Because Benjamin P cannot address Blick’s salient points in a coherent argument. He has to hide his own failings behind an insult.

    Mark

  130. sod (05:22:09) :

    you can NOT cherry pick, what a decade is. 10 years. period.

    this is NOT ad hominem. this “beliefs” have an effect on the subject that we are discussing.

    You can NOT pick your definitions to suit your own belief. Attacking the MAN for his beliefs is, by definition, an ad hominem. Get over it, sod.

    Mark

  131. Nasif Nahle (08:45:38) :

    Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong.

    If he could do that he wouldn’t have to marginalize the CATO signatories as ideologues.

    Mark

  132. Robert Bateman wrote:
    “If someone would back a plan to revitalize the railroad, modernize a clean-coal tech steam engine, the savings realized from cutting down on imported oil, increased tax revenue from new jobs (you have to transfer the cargo to local transport from rail), the reduced cost of transport reflected in the economy, and if that person had access to the President, …”

    That would require new locomotives. A better plan would be to use a liquid fuel synthesized from coal. About ten years ago there was a Time magazine cover story on an innovative coal liquification process (involving ammonia) that did that successfully, but it collapsed due to business conflicts among the companies involved. I hope something similar can be reactivated.

  133. I remember reading about that, at least, the liquification process. I wondered what happened.

    Mark

  134. Benjamin P.,

    Economics is not your strong point. So before you start getting complacent about the deficits that these budgets are certain to produce, you need to look at the Congressional Budget Office’s projections [and note that the CBO is one of only two credible organizations left in the entire U.S. government -- the military being the other one].

    The CBO projects a twenty trillion dollar [!!] cost within ten years for the president’s currently proposed programs. Assuming a conservative 5% debt expense over next decade, that means U.S. taxpayers will have to pay an additional $1 Trillion per year in perpetuity, as just the interest on the runaway spending.

    To add insult to injury, Cap and Trade is based on the completely false notion that an addition to a minor trace gas will cause any problems at all. Even the alarmist IPCC admits that C&T will not make more than a tiny fraction of a degree difference, and the IPCC always exaggerates. Anyone who believes that we’re getting any value for the Cap and Trade tax is surely deranged. Or maybe just an economic simpleton.

    Since the bottom half of the American population pays zero federal taxes, that means the additional taxes required to simply pay for the interest on the president’s proposed new programs like Cap and Trade will raise federal taxes more than 50% from current levels within 10 years. Raising taxes 50% is sure to greatly prolong the current economic downturn. And those taxes will never go away. Think about that when you’re writing your check to the government on April 15th. Your taxes will soon be 50% higher.

    In addition, Cap & Trade will add to the price of any goods and services that emit any CO2 as a byproduct in their manufacture, transportation, energy use, etc. So not only will taxes go way up, but costs of products will go way up; a double whammy. And for what? The result will produce an economy-smothering effect like the VAT in Europe, only more severe.

    On top of this, the inflation created along with the newly created dollars will also jack up prices. We will have much higher taxes and much higher prices. That’s what happens when someone with zero real world experience gets into the critical job of president. It was completely irresponsible to hand the presidency to an individual whose main accomplishment was being a “community organizer.” Meeting a payroll, or even actually working in the private sector, should be the minimum experience necessary to understand the real world. Instead, we have an arrogant incompetent who talks tough. Yikes!

    The Cap and Trade portion of that indebtedness is about 9% [that's what they admit to, anyway; the real C&T tax will be significantly higher]. Anyone who claims that Cap & Trade is a one-off, single year expense is lying about it. Who do you think is going to pay the interest on the money spent on C&T? The tooth fairy?

    You need to understand that this wild spending spree is based on a combination of borrowed and created money to an extent that would have sounded preposterous pre-0bama. Just a year ago a $Billion was considered a lot of money. Now they’re throwing around $Trillions like they used to talk about $Billions. In other words, we’re heading toward spending literally thousands of times more money — only three months into a new Administration. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of every thinking person, they must be comatose.

  135. Your check won’t be 50% higher once per year, Smokey, what gets taken out of every paycheck, however, will be. ;)

    What will happen, btw, is that more and more domestic manufacturing will move overseas to 3rd world nations that are exempt from the treaties that force CO2 regulation. That means the goal of deconstructing the US economy will have been achieved.

    What angers, and saddens me, is that some of the people pushing for this know what it will do, and are in fact counting on it. Most, however, are incapable of seeing outside their blinders.

    Mark

  136. sod (12:01:20) You only showed nine years, here is your plot for ten years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend

    please count again. 1999-2008(9) is 10 years.

    here is the data of my graph. helps counting..

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend

    See what’s happening? Our planet is cooling off at an increasingly faster rate. No wonder the warmers are in a tizzy. Maybe all their frantic arm waving is causing an Earth-cooling breeze.

    our climate is NOT cooling. there is ZERO data supporting your claim.

    Please, tell me which of their scientific assertions is wrong and demonstrate why they are wrong.

    that is what i did. the “decade” claim is WRONG. fact.

    For example, you could start by the failure of AGW predictions.

    climate scientists don t make predictions and their projections were not wrong. you might want to check all your sources, because this claim was false on all accounts..

    You can NOT pick your definitions to suit your own belief. Attacking the MAN for his beliefs is, by definition, an ad hominem. Get over it, sod.

    if your believes have an effect on your results, then it is not ad hominem to point them out.

    if the emergency doctor isn t in a hurry, because of his believes about the pleasure of an after-life, then it is NOT ad hominem to call him out on it…

  137. sod (10:06:14):

    our climate is NOT cooling. there is ZERO data supporting your claim.

    Really? What was the mean change of temperature in 1998? What was the mean change of temperature in 2007? And up to date?

    ∆T 1998 = 0.51 K
    ∆T 2007 = 0.29 K
    ∆T 2008 – 2009 = 0.09 K

    ∆T + Tstd 1998 = 351.15 K
    ∆T + Tstd 2007 = 300.44 K
    ∆T + Tstd 2008 – 2009 = 300.24 K

    (Data from AMSU2-UAH and satellites).

    Is it warming or cooling?

  138. i chose my words very carefully: our climate is NOT cooling.

    5 years is NOT climate. 1 year is NOT climate.

    the “cooling” from 1998 is IRRELEVANT for climate, as there is warming when starting from 1997 (and every year before, for the whole period affected by by human CO2 emissions…) and 1999.

  139. sod (11:44:04) :

    i chose my words very carefully: our climate is NOT cooling.

    Yes, that’s what you wrote.

    5 years is NOT climate. 1 year is NOT climate.

    What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?

    the “cooling” from 1998 is IRRELEVANT for climate, as there is warming when starting from 1997 (and every year before, for the whole period affected by by human CO2 emissions…) and 1999.

    Thanks… Got two questions:

    1. What “cooling” is relevant for climate?

    2. Do you mean we humans have been here on Earth for the last 3.8 billion years emitting CO2?

  140. sod (10:06:14) :

    if your believes have an effect on your results, then it is not ad hominem to point them out.

    Nonsense. Results are results, they live or die on their own merit. It does not matter if he thinks God told him how to work the formulas used to obtain his results, if they are correct, they are correct, if they are wrong, they are wrong.

    You really need to learn a thing or two about logic… and science.

    Mark

  141. deadwood (16:27:18) :

    “CATO, in retaining and publishing Professor Blick’s signature, diminishes the impact of the letter. It has allowed the alarmists to attack Blick’s creationist writings rather than discuss or debate the message in the letter.

    I personally am disappointed in Dr. Michaels for not catching this.”

    Sigh. Now you want your own version of political correctness. I completely disagree. Those such as SOD are spouting hate speech. This should be pointed out with no further discussion.

    why is everyone answering SOD et al as if there is a valid argument to answer?

  142. Because sometimes pointing out someone’s illogical, and quite frankly, unintelligent arguments is stress relieving. If he wants to behave as one, I will treat him as one. ;)

    Whether we want to believe the ideal model of substance over style, the simple fact remains that these arguments are used by climate scientists and do sway the media and politicians. RC is nothing but one ad hominem attack after another and they truly think they are being scientific. It is shameful, but a true state of the world as it is.

    Btw, nobody has yet offered a valid scientific reason Blick should be discredited, which speaks volumes for such a position. Sod thinks Blick’s beliefs affect his results, yet cannot show how, nor can he show they are wrong to begin with.

    Mark

  143. @ Mark T (08:43:52) :

    Mark my point was that consensus means little, read the paragraph I wrote above the one you quoted. I think it’s ironic that consensus seems a good thing when you are a member of that particular view point.

    Man you folks go rabid if someone says something that does not fit your consensus!

    @ Smokey (09:34:18) :

    Smokey, I am not an advocate of cap and trade. JimB said “900 Billion in the latest budget” I thought that was a bit high, which it was, that was 900 billion over 10 years. That’s all my question was. Thanks for the treatise though.

    @ Mark T (08:47:35) :

    Listen Mark, its my OPINION that a person claiming to be a scientist has credibility issues being a YEC. Sorry if you don’t agree. He may be a great fluid dynamics physicists, but MY OPINION is still that I have a hard time taking him seriously. Does that make me a bad person in your eyes? Clearly it does based on your responses. I think you need to relax a little, maybe wipe some of that froth from your lips!

    @ Nasif Nahle (08:45:38) :

    I was simply saying that the folks are CATO are ideologues, which is true. They are likely the last place I would look for any thing on climate science.

    I am not an “Alarmist” or an “AGWer” or a “Deiner” or any of those other fun labels we all come up with for each other. I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion, and I wish there was more discussion on the SCIENCE rather than the politics. Although I understand why the politics is brought into the discussion.

    Ben

  144. @Smokey (11:14:59) :

    Why just the most recent years of data Smokey? Just curious.

    What if the current trend reverses later this year and goes up for the next 10 years?

    The “deniers” (what is a better term to use, non-AWGers?) love the most recent years of data and I have seen that data set, over and over and over here in comments. I just think its a bit disingenuous.

  145. I was looking at the sun image this morning and I said to myself, “Look at that new sun spot!” and it turns out, it was just a some crud on my monitor.

    Ben

  146. Doh! sorry my comment above was meant for another topic! Mods can delete it if they want, and this one too…

  147. deadwood (08:08:48) :

    Just Want Truth… (17:29:54) :

    i dont know why you said this to me.

  148. Well Benjamin P., opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. (hehe, sorry, old joke)

    Your opinion of a person you don’t know maybe valid in your own eyes, but from a scientific view point, we need proof and probability that his religious beliefs interfere with his science towards AGW, not conjecture.
    People have different beliefs around the world, are you pointing out that any person with a belief system contrary to your own, can not have a scientific mind and their views professionally should be disregarded?

  149. @ Lance (18:07:20) :

    Indeed, however, it is very difficult scientifically to argue a for a young earth. YEC is based on the idea first, and looking for the evidence second. If a person is happen to embrace that model for doing science with one aspect, why should I believe that they don’t use the same model for all their science?

    Should I believe that he understands his YEC views are errant, and he can be objective about other aspects of science?

    Ben

  150. Dave D (12:41:08) :

    ….

    The really sad commentary is that rational people are left hoping for cooling effects that hurt all of mankind, to reverse the progress of these scoundrels who are leading this Green Movement.

    Environmentalism, think about the word. Every sane person should be a champion of the environment. In today’s World, it stands for liars, cheats and greedy people. I don’t know that much about GreenPeace, maybe some other readers do – are they misguided or simply as corrupt and lazy as the UN?

    Sorry if I went on – sometimes it does seem that hope is far away.

    Dave

    Refer to Greenpeace Founders Patrick Moores take on those who now run Greenpeace (Apparently he left in disgust). Ref: http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34

    Pay attention to his take on “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” on page 3 above.

    Cheers G

  151. sod (11:44:04) :

    Thanks for the bold print. If you shout that means people start to listen? Or is that you whistling louder as you pass the cemetery?

    The earth is in a cooling trend. It is cooler on earth now that it was during the Medieval Warming Period, and that includes 1998. And, it was even warmer on earth during the Roman Wring Period than during the Medieval Warming Period.

    The earth is cooling sod. The recent warming ended in 1998. And there is a clear cooling trend since 2004. This cooling was never predicted by Al Gore.

  152. Tim McHenry: “You attempted to show that the criticism was on target by saying that what someone believes about a past, non-repeatable, non-observable event is germain to a discussion of present temp. readings and testable near-future models!”

    An understanding of paleoclimate is a necessary background for understanding current climate change. If a scientist believes that the paleoclimate record can be encapsulated into 10,000 years, he will have a profoundly different – and incorrect – understanding of the way the world works from that of accepted science.

    Since the creationist regards creationism/ID as scientific knowledge, his religious beliefs are indistinguishable from his scientific claims. Therefore, his religious beliefs – or at least those that pertain to creationist scientific claims — can justifiably be submitted to scrutiny.

  153. Burch Seymour:
    “BH: It doesn’t take a climate scientist to understand that the credibility of the persuasion depends on the credibility of the names listed.
    BS: Two words: Al Gore”

    If Al Gore were to use his background in government or law to support his scientific claims, then you would have a case. Otherwise, not.

    The issue here is the credibility of the scientists named in the Cato ad. The fact that Cato has used these scientists to support a claim that President Obama is wrong means that the credibility of those scientists is a legitimate issue.

    If the credibility of the names didn’t matter, Cato could simply have used the names of 100 sceptics picked at random. It didn’t do so because it was banking on the force of the names it chose. Since the Cato ad is based on the credibility of its named scientists, it is legitimate to examine their credentials.

  154. Just Want Truth… (21:31:43) Thanks for saving me the effort of typing something similar.

  155. What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?

    climate is average weather, over a longer period. 30 years is a number often mentioned.

    Nonsense. Results are results, they live or die on their own merit. It does not matter if he thinks God told him how to work the formulas used to obtain his results, if they are correct, they are correct, if they are wrong, they are wrong.

    i pointed out that the claim about “no net global warming for over a decade now” is false.

    i have noticed, that nobody has brought up any evidence to support this claim.

    so Blick has signed a false claim. no surprise, as he also thinks that earth is only 10000 years old.

    someone with such a believe can be right on any climate issue, only by chance.

    somebody who believes that earth is flat, can NOT understand the climate of our planet. neither can a person, who thinks that it is only 10000 years old.

  156. sod claims that there is no proof of global cooling. Maybe not on his planet.

    The Earth is cooler now than a decade ago. To rational people, that means a net cooling. The proof is in the 5 links I posted above [and I have plenty more if five aren't enough].

    Yet with the evidence staring sod [interesting name there. Self-esteem problems?] right in the face, he still claims that there has been no net cooling over the past decade. That’s the difference between skeptical climate realists and globaloney warmists.

    Skeptics are simply saying show us your real world, convincing evidence that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Because that is the central issue in the whole debate, isn’t it? If CO2 is not a problem, then there is no reason to spend new tax money “fighting global warming”. Especially during a recession, when more taxes are seriously counter productive.

    There’s a reason the warmist contingent avoids the question above like the plague. Because the answer is clear: CO2 is not a problem. And since CO2 is not a problem, the whole “climate change” debate becomes irrelevant. Except to the fanatics who can’t let go.

    Benjamin P.:

    Man you folks go rabid if someone says something that does not fit your consensus! reality.

    There. Fixed it for you.

  157. sod (04:36:30) :

    What’s climate? Perhaps 400 BD is “climate”?

    climate is average weather, over a longer period. 30 years is a number often mentioned.

    That’s the definition forged by the IPCC and spread out by ehow.com and wikipedia. I have the scientific description on what climate is:

    Statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of meteorological elements, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characterize the general conditions of the atmosphere over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

    Thus the period from which Smokey concludes the Earth is cooling is scientifically valid.

    That number of years (“30 years is a number often mentioned”) is no more than an attempt on downgrading climate.

    Scientists consider the climate of a region during lapses much smaller than one decade; although, we extend our researches over periods longer than 30 years. For example, to understand the last negligible warming, which concluded in 1998, we must analyze the climate over at least the last 2000 years or, better, over the last 12000 years.

    If you evaluate the temperature fluctuations during the last 20 thousand years, you’d easily confirm that the Earth is not only cooling, but actually it is getting glacial.

  158. @ Smokey (05:41:42) :

    For some, it seems, reality is a subjective thing.

    Smokey its hard to deny that there has been not been some cooling in the last decade, the proof is in the data. The exact mechanism to explain that cooling , i’d argue, is not fully understood. Like a lot of things in climate science!

    It will be interesting to see what folks will be saying if temperature starts heading up again. Since we all know a decades worth of data is “proof” for climate science.

    What I really want to know is what caused the cooling form 1980-1985?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1985/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1985/plot/wti/from:1980/to:1985

    That should have spot this whole climate conversation from ever happening.

    Short term trends trump everything, right Smokey?

    Ben

  159. Benjamin P. (13:48:30) :

    I am not an “Alarmist” or an “AGWer” or a “Deiner” or any of those other fun labels we all come up with for each other. I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion, and I wish there was more discussion on the SCIENCE rather than the politics. Although I understand why the politics is brought into the discussion.

    Not sure what a “Deiner” is ;) But your single phrase “I think the science is NOT settled on the climate discussion” makes you a denier by AGW standards.

    Welcome to the club!

  160. Brendan H (22:37:46) :

    Since the creationist regards creationism/ID as scientific knowledge, his religious beliefs are indistinguishable from his scientific claims. Therefore, his religious beliefs – or at least those that pertain to creationist scientific claims — can justifiably be submitted to scrutiny.

    Sure, subject to scrutiny, but in the end, you still need to come up with a legitimate – scientific – reason his views on climate science are incorrect, else you are still using an argumentum ad hominem.

    You wrote this all well enough to sound credible, but you really still suffer from the same problem: the only reason you have to dismiss this guy is his religious beliefs.

    The definition of an ad hominem fallacy does not make any distinction about how closely a person’s beliefs are to the subject of his argument. Simply saying “you are ignorant, therefore you are wrong” is an argumentum ad hominem. Likewise, saying your religious beliefs have an impact on your credibility, therefore you are wrong, is also an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

    I should point out that the simple fact that you used a fallacious argument to discredit Blick does not mean you are wrong: Blick could be. It would be a fallacy on my part to make that assumption. However, the onus on you is still to provide a legitimate reason he is wrong. You cannot, else you would have.

    Mark

  161. Benjmain P. (07:33:43) :

    Short term trends trump everything, right Smokey?

    Strawman alert. Smokey never said that, nor did he imply that.

    Mark

  162. Benjmain P. (07:33:43) :

    Smokey its hard to deny that there has been not been some cooling in the last decade, the proof is in the data. The exact mechanism to explain that cooling , i’d argue, is not fully understood. Like a lot of things in climate science!

    It’s also hard to deny that there was a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period that were at least as warm as today, and at least as global as any warming we’ve seen today, but many still do so.

  163. The definition of an ad hominem fallacy does not make any distinction about how closely a person’s beliefs are to the subject of his argument. Simply saying “you are ignorant, therefore you are wrong” is an argumentum ad hominem.

    this is not what we say. we say: your (false) believes have an effect on this topic. you shouldn t be on a list of supporting scientists, if the list is supposed to generate credibility.

    It’s also hard to deny that there was a Roman Warm Period and a Medieval Warm Period that were at least as warm as today, and at least as global as any warming we’ve seen today, but many still do so.

    both your claims are false, of course. the MWP was NOT as warm as “today”, and the claim that it was global is weak at best.

  164. sod (12:22:32) :

    this is not what we say. we say: your (false) believes have an effect on this topic. you shouldn t be on a list of supporting scientists, if the list is supposed to generate credibility.

    You just don’t get it… it does not matter if his beliefs have an effect on this topic. Either he’s right or wrong about GW. Put up a legitimate failure in his GW work, and you’ll have a case. Do you have one? Thought so…

    both your claims are false, of course. the MWP was NOT as warm as “today”, and the claim that it was global is weak at best.

    Actually, nobody knows because we did not have thermometers back then. The global claim is not weak at best, given that it has been reported on nearly every continent. You can ignore the reports, calling them anecdotal, but all we have is anecdote to begin with. Go ahead, try to make a claim about the tree ring recons, you’ll look as silly as Mann and Schmidt.

    Mark

  165. sod (12:22:32) :

    both your claims are false, of course. the MWP was NOT as warm as “today”, and the claim that it was global is weak at best.

    Because you say they’re false doesn’t make them so. Prove them false. I can provide links to the contrary if you like. Of course, I did not claim the RWP or MWP were “global” I said they were at least as “global” as today’s “global warming”, which is far from global.

  166. Hehe, no kidding. Today’s “global” warming is primarily above the arctic circle and otherwise concentrated around heavily populated areas, aka, cities. Curious little factoid, eh? ;)

    Mark

  167. @ Mark T (09:41:58) :

    Well what is smokey implying? Smokey? You are saying the earth is cooling over the last 8-10 years right? A short term trend? You said “The Earth is cooler now than a decade ago. To rational people, that means a net cooling. The proof is in the 5 links I posted above [and I have plenty more if five aren't enough].” And of those 5 links most show only the last decade.

    So what am I supposed to take Smokey’s argument as? If I look at the last 100 years I see a different trend, but it seems shorter scale trends are more important to some folks. Tell me what I am missing.

    @ Jeff Alberts (09:44:33) :

    I’ve never denied it.

    @ Jeff Alberts (09:39:04) :

    Thanks for having me! I am in the club that we just don’t know enough to claim for certain one way or another. There are some folks who say the end is near because of CO2, others who say they are crazy and some folks who think climate science is in its infancy.

  168. Benjmain P. (13:48:28) :

    Thanks for having me! I am in the club that we just don’t know enough to claim for certain one way or another. There are some folks who say the end is near because of CO2, others who say they are crazy and some folks who think climate science is in its infancy.

    I’m in the same club, hehe. I’m not into the “See! It’s cooling now!” club, since our level of measurement capability is still pretty bad. And again, there’s no such thing as a “global mean temperature”.

  169. Benjmain P. (13:48:28) :

    So what am I supposed to take Smokey’s argument as?
    Exactly what it was: the earth has been cooling recently, which is absolutely correct. He never said or implied that “short term trends trump everything.”

    Tell me what I am missing.

    It’s not what you’re missing, it’s what you’re adding. That makes your argument a strawman. Whether it continues on this trend, or if longer term trends are different, is immaterial.

    Mark

    * quite frankly, the whole trend business is a farce because it is arbitrary. Tell me what the trend of a sine wave is.

  170. Benjamin P.,

    Whenever the discussion devolves like this it’s always the same. If I post a chart of a longer period, people complain that they’re talking about the short term, and vice-versa.

    I have lots of charts. Here’s one that covers the past 425,000 years, and it should make you feel good about the fact that we’re in one of the Earth’s infrequent hospitable climate periods: click

  171. Smokey,
    Just wanted to say how much I appreciate the way you answer so many questions with your timely, appropriate and sometimes funny links.
    It seems like you are playing a big important game of whack-a-mole. As soon as they pop up with some ill-considered remark, you are always waiting there with your hammer… WHACK!!!
    Thanks,
    Mike

  172. Mark T (09:39:40) :

    “Brendan H… the onus on you is still to provide a legitimate reason he is wrong. You cannot, else you would have.”

    Score!

  173. Credibility? Religion?

    Let’s have a look at one of the biggest names in the AGW alarmists side, James Lovelock :

    “…homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased Gaias range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.”

    ~Sir James Lovelock, “Gaia: A New Look At Life”

    Any thoughts on his credibility? His religion? It looks like his religion IS his science.

  174. Thanx, Mike Bryant. Coming from a Texan, that means a lot!

    The U.S. Marines have a simple, straightforward motto: “Kill the [effin'] enemy!” That’s my philosophy, too.

    It’s them or us. But we have a big advantage: the truth. And I believe that the truth always wins in the end. In the mean time…

    Whack-A-Mole!

  175. Mark T: “Likewise, saying your religious beliefs have an impact on your credibility, therefore you are wrong, is also an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.”

    That’s not my argument. There are two issues here.

    1. In effect, the Cato ad is claiming that the listed scientists have sufficient expertise in climate science to be able to make authoritative and credible statements about the current climate.

    In running the ad, Cato has raised the issue of credibility. Therefore, it is no ad hominem to challenge that credibility. Otherwise, we could never make a judgment about anyone’s expertise.

    2. The problem with the creationist – and especially the young-earth creationist – is not his religion, but his science. The creationist attempts to fit his science into the mould of his religion. In that case, pointing out the actual age of the earth is an affront to both his religion and his science. But that’s his problem, since he insists on conflating religion and science.

    In claiming that the creationist’s religious beliefs should be above criticism, you are giving him a free ride on his science. I see no reason to do that.

    So the issue here is the credibility of the scientists as scientists, not their specific scientific claims or their religious beliefs.

    “I should point out that the simple fact that you used a fallacious argument to discredit Blick does not mean you are wrong: Blick could be. It would be a fallacy fallacy on my part to make that assumption.”

    No it wouldn’t. Logical fallacies address the form, not the content, of an argument. Whether Blick is right or wrong about climate is an empirical issue, not a matter of logic.

    • Brenda H:

      In your “1” you state

      In running the ad, Cato has raised the issue of credibility.

      Uh no, no they didn’t. They are merely stating disagreement with the so-called consensus. Thus your point collapses concerning the concept of ad hominems and credibility.

      On “2”, I’ll give you some slack, because YEC’s are tricky as scientists, but because your 1 is based on a false assumption, it strongly weakens your points in 2.

      You off the grid yet?

  176. Brendan H.,

    The issue of any scientist’s religious beliefs is a complete red herring argument, thus it fails. You are only making that argument because you can not refute the science. It is a weak fallback position that exposes your lack of a rational counter argument.

    Where is the very fuzzy line you draw between one type of religious belief and another? Are Episcopalians more correct, and therefore better scientists, than Baptists? Do Scientologists make better scientists than Lutherans? Are Atheists better scientists than Agnostics? Than Buddhists? Than Muslims? If so, why exactly? Give us your reasoning.

    Creationists really bother you for one simple reason: you can not disprove the possibility that the entire universe began ten milliseconds ago in its current state. You can not provide any evidence whatever that the universe was not created that way.

    Many, and probably most of the great Western scientists [which is to say most of the world's great scientists] were/are religious. Their personal beliefs did not keep them from performing great science.

    Tarring the reputations of all religious scientists [which is exactly what you're doing] is unethical. It is nothing but a weak attempt to find any possible argument to attack highly educated individuals who don’t think like you do. What makes your very limited version of reality better than, for instance, Albert Einstein’s? Who are you to judge?

    Your argument is also weak because it can apply to almost any situation. “That cop had no right to give me a ticket. He’s a creationist!” “The bank turned down my loan because it’s run by creationists!” “That scientist can’t be right because he’s a creationist!” If a creationist says 2+2 = 4, and an Atheist says 2+2 = 5, which one is right? And how does their religious belief enter into it? [And make no mistake: Atheists have just as strong a personal belief system as the others that you ignorantly disparage. And so do plenty of Al Gore's followers.]

    You are simply a bigot. Either answer the scientific arguments presented, or run up the white flag. Because if you continue to mix in the religious argument to deliberately cloud the science issue, it will be clear to everyone that you have no way to refute the science. All you have left is a red herring to drag across the path of the bloodhounds on the scent of the truth.

  177. Because you say they’re false doesn’t make them so. Prove them false. I can provide links to the contrary if you like. Of course, I did not claim the RWP or MWP were “global” I said they were at least as “global” as today’s “global warming”, which is far from global.

    wild claim. so you have proxy records, showing temperature as global as satellites do?

    i am impressed!

    i would really love to see a study, that shows the MWP to be warmer than today. mind to provide a link?

    If a creationist says 2+2 = 4, and an Atheist says 2+2 = 5, which one is right? And how does their religious belief enter into it?

    your example doesn t fit the situation. your religious believe doesn t have an effect on those calculations.

    bringing on their religious believes to counter their argument, would be ad hominem.

    if the person doing the calculation on the other hand belonged to a weird mathematical sect, that believes that integers don t exist and that the results of calculation are only given to certain priests after long periods of praying under drug influence, it would make a difference.

    in that case, dismissing their results as pure randomness is NOT ad hominem.

  178. “if the person doing the calculation on the other hand belonged to a weird mathematical sect, that believes that integers don t exist and that the results of calculation are only given to certain priests after long periods of praying under drug influence, it would make a difference.”

    HUH?!?! That sounds like the current state of climate science…

  179. Medieval Warming Period was warmer than the last recent warming and it was global. From Science Magazine this week:

    i can t access the article, but the abstract says:

    The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was the most recent pre-industrial era warm interval of European climate, yet its driving mechanisms remain uncertain.

    http://science-mag.aaas.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5923/78

    the support material alos focuses on europe. and it shows the “late” MWP.

  180. sod‘s understanding is surpassed by his spelling, his punctuation, and his screen name. It’s a hat trick!

  181. Sorry for that… There is a graph in the article, Figure No. 1, where the MWP is shown in comparison with the recent WP. Besides, the authors are trying to explain the causes of the Medieval Warming Period.

    From the same abstract:

    “The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was the most recent pre-industrial era warm interval

    Further in the article, the authors point on the fact that the Medieval European Climate coincided with other locations in the world.

    It would be good for you to buy the article and read the full version.

  182. Smokey…

    I’ll take your advice into account. Just let me finishing my interventions on this issue:

    From graph No. 4 on the same article, the MWP has been confirmed in US, Canada, Mexico, South America, North Africa, North Atlantic and European sector and extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere…

  183. Brendan H (23:00:50) :

    No it wouldn’t. Logical fallacies address the form, not the content, of an argument. Whether Blick is right or wrong about climate is an empirical issue, not a matter of logic.

    I never said Blick’s views were a matter of logic. I said it would be a fallacy on my part to assume that you were wrong because of a fallacious argument.

    Please, try to read and understand what it is you are debating before opening your mouth (keyboard) and proving you haven’t.

    Also, not all logical fallacies are of form, only the formal ones are. Informal fallacies are not based on form, but rhetorical or dialectal considerations.

    Mark

  184. sod (04:34:36) :

    your example doesn t fit the situation. your religious believe doesn t have an effect on those calculations.

    How do you know this to be true?

    bringing on their religious believes to counter their argument, would be ad hominem.

    You don’t even know how argumentum ad hominem is defined, how can you be so authoritative here?

    Show me where in the definition there is an exception “if it effects their results.” Please, I DARE you.

    Mark

  185. Jeez: “They are merely stating disagreement with the so-called consensus.”

    The credibility issue is implicit in the choice of scientists as the cited names. Otherwise, somebody like Smokey would do just as well. But Smokey would not be regarded by Cato as an authoritative voice, so would not have been invited to sign the letter. So the issue of credibility is central to the Cato claims about climate.

    “You off the grid yet?”

    No. Don’t plan to either. Climate change is best tackled through large-scale, collective action. Individual initiatives might be helpful and probably make people feel good, but I feel fine, so no need.

  186. Smokey: “The issue of any scientist’s religious beliefs is a complete red herring argument…”

    As I said, the issue is creation science, not religion. Creation science is bogus science. Creation scientists can often get away with it because their beliefs don’t always impinge on their particular speciality.

    But earth science is another matter. A young-earth creationist is not qualified to comments on matters that involve thousands and millions of years of climate. As for other types of religions, as long as they don’t bring doctrine or theology into science, their religious beliefs are irrelevant to the science.

    Science is based on methodological naturalism, which rules out recourse to non-natural, including supernatural, explanations. If the non-natural can be studied using naturalistic methods, then by definition it is no longer non-natural. QED.

    “…you can not disprove the possibility that the entire universe began ten milliseconds ago in its current state.”

    I can’t disprove the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden. Speculating on the possibility that the entire universe began ten milliseconds might make for interesting late-night conversation, but cannot be entertained as a serious scientific possibility, so why bother?

    Apart from what such speculation might say about the character of the creator, a just-created universe renders science irrelevant, since there’s no point investigating an illusion. But it’s a free world, so go down that path if you wish.

    “Your argument is also weak because it can apply to almost any situation.”

    No. Only science. Creationism is bogus science, and bogus science has no credibility, so cannot be used to counter genuine science.

  187. Brendan H (15:21:09) :

    No. Only science. Creationism is bogus science, and bogus science has no credibility, so cannot be used to counter genuine science.

    Again, can you cite any specific failure of Blick’s GW work? Your faith that he is wrong because he is a Creationist cannot be used to counter any legitimate science the man has done, either.

    Just another hypocrite.

    Mark

  188. Mark T: “I said it would be a fallacy on my part to assume that you were wrong because of a fallacious argument.”

    You should write more clearly. Your original comment was: “I should point out that the simple fact that you used a fallacious argument to discredit Blick does not mean you are wrong: Blick could be. It would be a fallacy on my part to make that assumption.”

    This appears to mean that your assumption involves the question of who is factually right or wrong, not who is advancing a fallacious argument.
    And the fact that you are able to distinguish between fallacy and accuracy implies a distinction between form and content.

    “Please, try to read and understand what it is you are debating before opening your mouth (keyboard) and proving you haven’t.”

    And you learn to put brain into gear before putting finger to keyboard.

  189. Mark T (16:05:00) :

    Again, can you cite any specific failure of Blick’s GW work?

    I think you’re giving Brendan an impossible task- Blick doesn’t seem to have done any GW work. At least, nothing that comes up on google scholar.

    It would be interesting to know how he interprets things like the 800,000 years of the Vostok ice core, and the vast amount of geological evidence for multiple ice ages over the past few million years.

    It’s tough to get multiple ice sheets (each several thousand miles across and a mile thick) to form and melt within a few thousand years!

  190. Mark T: “Again, can you cite any specific failure of Blick’s GW work?”

    If Blick is a young-earth creationist he is not qualified to offer an opinion on some major aspects of climate science, since the background to today’s climate involves an understanding of paleoclimate. Someone who denies an old earth cannot credibly comment on matters that assume an old earth.

    For example, take the Cato ad’s first point:

    “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.”

    In terms of geological time, the speed of the current warming is very fast. To know that you would have to know the rate of warming from previous eras, going back thousands and millions of years. A young-earth creationist cannot bring that sort of understanding to the issue.

    “Your faith that he is wrong because he is a Creationist cannot be used to counter any legitimate science the man has done, either.”

    It’s not a matter of faith that creationism is wrong. It’s a matter of scientific evidence. And I’m not trying to counter any legitimate science that creationists might do. Just the wingnut stuff.

  191. Brendan H.:

    I don’t know squat about creationism, other than its basic, unfalsifiable premise, which is that its adherents believe that the world began, all up and running, at a specific and relatively recent time.

    Creationism is a religion, get it? It is not science, even though evolutionists just love to get creationists into science debates where [surprisingly to me] creationists often hold their own and give better than they get.

    By falsely labeling creationism as a science rather than what it is — a Bible-based religion — duplicitous climate alarmists are attempting to frame the argument their own way. But as stated above, if this is what the alarmists’ argument has devolved into, then they’ve got nothing but ad hominem attacks left in their arsenal of dirty tricks. Sucks to be them, huh?

    Creationism is a religious belief system; it is not any more science than what the True Believers in the AGW/CO2 globaloney scam are trying to sell to the public.

    Creationism can not possibly be science [no matter what some agenda pushers claim], because creationism is not falsifiable: so QED yourself. Creationism can not, by the definition of the Scientific Method, be called “science.”

    Are Christian Scientists really a science-based discipline? Or are they a religion? Are Scientologists a science-based discipline? Or are they a religion? Same answer as for creationists: All of these groups are 501(c)3 tax exempt religions. So your false claim that creationists are a scientific discipline fails. If you don’t like it, go argue with the IRS.

    You set up your straw man argument only so that you can be seen as a brave straw man killer. What a guy. Sorry to bust your bubble.

    In reality, you are nothing but a religious bigot with no credible answers to the questions skeptics ask — and you obviously have a personal problem with freedom of religion. Why is that? What’s your personal problem with another man’s religion?

    The 1st Amendment was made for out-of-control bigots who, if it were up to them, would not even allow scientists to practice any religion. Unless, of course, their religion was that of the politically correct AGW/CO2 True Believer.

  192. Smokey (18:08:07) :

    But Blick DOES think that creationism is science:

    http://www.icr.edu/home/

    He’s on the board of the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, which offers a degree in “science” eduction. (down load the catalog and see for yourself).

    They even teach a course in paleoclimatology!

  193. Further in the article, the authors point on the fact that the Medieval European Climate coincided with other locations in the world.

    i saw that i the online support material.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/324/5923/78/DC1/1

    i ll try to get hold of the article.

    sod’s understanding is surpassed by his spelling, his punctuation, and his screen name. It’s a hat trick!

    thanks for posting this classic ad hominem.

    instead of countering my points (what is wrong with my understanding of a decade, for example?), you bring up spelling errors and screen name.

    if on the other hand, you would point out that my punctuation errors make it impossible to understand my arguments, then it would NOT be ad hominem. it would be a legitimate argument.

    this is part of the definition of the term:

    argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim (wiki)

    pointing out a belief or characteristic that has an effect on the discussion, is not ad hominem, as it does not address this part “rather” than the substance. it is part of the substance!

  194. Since we are so OT in the later half of this thread, I will just stick with the OT conversation!

    Smokey, I am glad that you, like me, can recognize that creationism IS a religious belief, and could never be science because it lacks any tests that could falsify it. However, many of the folks who adhere to creationism do in fact believe it is a “science” which is unfortunate. That’s why we have the school boards pushing to have Intelligent design and other creationism ideas taught as an “alternative theory” to evolution in our public school systems.

    This weakens our scientific literacy as a nation, and its evident that we have a long ways to go with scientific literacy in this nation since we are having the conversation in the first place.

    I think the point that sod and others (and myself) are making is that its difficult for us to take a creationist serious when they comment on climate science since they believe the earth was not even around the last time glaciers covered the midwest.

    I am not saying that the folks at CATO have no argument because their list of PhDs has a creationist, I am just saying that I find it difficult to take folks who are creationists serious when they speak on maters of Earth science.

    Again, I am not a “death is around the corner” AGWer, but I do think that humans can influence their climate, and help to amplify (or weaken) natural variations.

  195. Charles: “[snip--this post would have required so much snipping that it wasn't worth it to preserve it. Not my job to rewrite ~ charles the moderator]”

    I didn’t start this. In the last couple of days I have been called a “hypocrite” and a “religious bigot”. So where were you when this was happening? You’re supposed to be a “moderator”. Or do sceptic insults get a free pass?

    Reply: Sorry about that. They wouldn’t have gotten by me. We have a team of moderators and I don’t check posts once they’re approved, unless I’m researching some sort of dispute to get to the bottom of it. And I never care who starts it. I just try to stop it. ~ charles the moderator

Comments are closed.