Dr. Neil Frank on Climategate: “you should be steamed”

Climategate: You should be steamed

By NEIL FRANK, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Jan. 2, 2010

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/mfl/history/FrankN.jpg

Dr. Neil Frank. Image: NOAA

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climate­gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

[h/t: Invariant]

Climategate: You should be steamed

By NEIL FRANK
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM

// <![CDATA[
/*

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people’s endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel’s report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.

Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS’ true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climate­gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

About these ads

184 thoughts on “Dr. Neil Frank on Climategate: “you should be steamed”

  1. More & more Papers and Reporters are seeing the light and having the guts to come out in support of the “Reality”.

  2. The future investigations should be interesting considering the many billions in the Stimulus package ear-marked for climate change research.

    The other question is whether Congress, when asked to send billions to the third world for damages that we have supposedly done to them with our CO2 emissions, will start looking seriously at the science to find, easily, reasons not to send the money, particularly in light of the recent over-spending. The real science will support doing nothing.

  3. I absolutely agree. There should be a proper, independent investigation of the claims of the AGW camp undertaken by not only climate scientists, but mathematicians, numerical analysts, staisticians, signal processors, physicists etc. who are experts in the fields that underpin climate science and can scrutinise specific aspects of the whole body of work. I expect that when the CRU and Met Office data is really dug into, there will all sorts of errors. The Wegman report is a masterpiece of cool, objective thinking in an overheated subject and could act as a template for further investigations.

  4. Thanks to Dr. Frank for speaking out and informing the general public.

    What can the scientific community do to confront the recent unscientific findings of the EPA and associate governement propaganda claining carbon dioxide is a threatening atmospheric pollutant?

  5. Yea,yea..but he’s not a “climate specialist”,he only dealt with weather what he says about a few out-of-context e-mails stolen from the private,none-more-private, computers of the endlessly harassed planet-saving heroes of the gallant CRU does nothing to invalidate the megatons of research that proves driving SVUs and building coal-fired power stations is killing polar bears faster than was previously thought.

    Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.

  6. He still wants to blame “hackers” even though analysis here at WUWT, at ClimateAudit.org, at JunkScience.com and elsewhere show that it was more than likely to have been the work of insider who goofed or a whistleblower. Regardless, the rest of the article is spot-on.

  7. Charles Higley (10:14:49) :

    The other question is whether Congress, when asked to send billions to the third world for damages that we have supposedly done to them with our CO2 emissions, will start looking seriously at the science to find, easily, reasons not to send the money, particularly in light of the recent over-spending. The real science will support doing nothing.
    ————————-

    Right now, if Bolivia or Venezuela, as good examples, sued the US for those damages in the World Court, could they not subpoena Al Gore and the EPA leadership (to name just a few), as witnesses for the prosecution ??

  8. It will be increasingly difficult to hide behind the “Climategate does not undermine the science of climategate” excuse if a few more papers publish pieces like this.


  9. rob m (10:33:19) :

    I wish some GW would strike Dallas. I am tired of winter already.

    And to think, if I may borrow from a past popular song, ‘we have only just begun’ winter …

    Forecast for D/FW area is teens (F) come Friday.
    .
    .

  10. “Rob M. (10:27:24) :
    [...]
    Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.”

    So the skeptics control both sides of the debate now by posing as pro AGW? That’s a Fenton Communications move and should be below us.

  11. A great post from Andy Revkin’s blog

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/the-greatest-story-rarely-told/?sort=recommended

    62. felixw USA
    January 2nd, 2010 7:56 pm

    If global warming activists want to be taken seriously they might consider:

    (1) Debating their opponents rather than pretending they don’t exist;

    (2) Treating this issue as a scientific matter dealt with by scientists, and not as an ideological campaign spearheaded by politicians and pundits.

    (3) No longer destroying the raw data so their work can’t be checked.

    (3) Insisting that groups (such as NASA) share the data they have been hiding, despite repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

    (4) No longer saying that the climate is warming in public, but admit that it is cooling in private emails.

    (5) No longer manipulating the peer review, tenure and grant systems to marginalize researchers who disagree with them.

    (6) Encouraging an atmosphere of openness and transparency in the scientific community.

    But if they violate all of these reasonable conditions, they shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously by impartial minds.

  12. “skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil”

    Coal is a much bigger CO2 problem than oil. Coal, coal, coal – not oil. The big problem is coal.

  13. What should happen is that any university associated in any way with a “team member” should lose its accreditation. All team members should be barred from receiving any federally sponsored contracts. All team members employed by the federal government should be immediately fired for violation of the Hatch act.

    What will happen is that the media will try to muzzle the outcry and things will remain quiet. Remember who is in power. This will infuriate the members of the general public who are informed. The next round of elections will create a turnabout that is unprecedented.
    Perhaps from the media perspective, “Its worse than we thought!”.
    :-)

  14. I am indeed steamed about climategate and the dishonesty of climate researchers central to the alarmist movement, but I’m surprised that Dr. Frank would confuse the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a private group responsible for the petition mentioned, with the unrelated University of Oregon, a highly regarded public institution. I hope his error is unintentional and will soon be acknowledged and corrected. It only invites derision from the warmists and, perhaps legal attention from the U of O.

  15. Some propositions:

    1. Amending Frank, slightly, you don’t have to be a skeptic, but just an observer, to see that the warming since 1850 is nothing unusual, much less alarming or dramatic. Yet it has been sold as alarming and dramatic.

    2. The correlation between CO2 and this nothing unusual warming could have as much meaning as the correlation between the increase in the popularity of the cigarette during WWI and the dramatic increase in Western longevity in the 20th Century. Correlations, in other words, are everywhere.

    3. A parallel line of climatologists could produce research that shows CO2 is suppressing natural warming rather than adding to it. Where there is no distinct signal, you can fit data to whatever hypothesis you like.

    4. What makes Climategate doubly infuriating is that the CRU blokes and their chums elsewhere worked so hard to raise waves in what turns out to be a teacup and now serious people have to attend to fraud on top of the original exaggeration. And “the world” is still spinning around the AGW axis and making a fool of itself.

  16. Copied over from the thread I first saw this:

    I’m not sure how important it is in the grand scheme of things, but count it as another score for MSM recognition that AGW isn’t settled science and may be wrong. Hasn’t the Houston Chronicle printed some other skeptical pieces in the past few months?

    Neil Frank, in my estimation, was the best director of the NHC they’ve ever had. I particularly appreciated his blunt assessment of coastal condos and the damage a coast-hugging hurricane could do to them. I wonder how he would have handled the step increase in Atlantic activity in 1995.

  17. Meanwhile from the Financial Times we get this:

    Will 2010 be the hottest year globally in recorded history?
    Climate change sceptics frequently point out that 1998 was the hottest year since measurements began. If the world is warming, why has the record not been broken, they ask.

    Scientists say 1998 was so hot because of the exceptional El Niño warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that year. With another El Niño apparently developing now – and superimposing its effect on man-made climate change – it is more likely than not that 2010 will beat the 1998 record, according to the much-maligned but often accurate UK Met Office.

    Although a big volcanic eruption or El Niño’s sudden death would cool things down, I’ll go for the big heat. Next year’s global average temperature will be the highest on record – which may give renewed impetus to international action against global warming, after the Copenhagen fiasco. Clive Cookson

    My response, bahahahaha

  18. @philincalifornia
    You are saying that Hugo Chavez and Al Gore will become close friends, helping out each other? That’s a logical consequence, right.
    Happy crazy New world.

  19. There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence. Meanwhile, those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”. The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.

  20. The silence in the main stream comedia has been deafening. It must be a horse size pill to swallow after spewing misinformation all these years. If I were a journalist that had been going on and on about CAGW based mainly on the findings of the IPCC and CRU, I would be loath to admit that my basic assumptions were based on falsehoods. Personally, I would still have the cajones to admit I was wrong, and then let history judge me and my credibility. Fat chance that any of those journalists are going to do that.

  21. Mike: (11:08:42) A cursory examination of this subject would show you to be projecting. You swallowed the green pill.

  22. “Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”” NEIL FRANK
    ___________________________
    So true! But By Who? (Whom?)

    The professional associations? Whose boards sold their souls to the big bidders in spite of the divisions within their membership on the issue?

    The politicans? Who sold their souls.. scratch that it doens’t make any sense.

    The legal system? Give me a break.

    Nope! Can’t think of anyone up to doing what the author is saying needs to be done. The only people who can do anything close to what is being suggested are the membership of the “professional” associations. Now they generally didn’t do anything before Copenhagen, so I guess there’s little chance of them cleaning their own houses after the great debacle.

    PS: “When a house of cards gets too big it starts to fall.” (Unk)

  23. Dr. Frank is breath of fresh air.

    A few years ago his local weather report on KHOU followed a story about global warming. He was steamed and launched into an impromptu editorial, much along the vein of his above editorial, i.e., we can’t predict the weather a few days into the future, much less develop computer models that will predict climate change years into the future.

    It was great.

  24. Mike, I will now pose a question to you that I posed to a poster named Skeptical Skeptic on another thread. What kind of world do you want to see? Where do you see mankind in the future?

  25. Thank you, excellent article.

    One of the statements I’ve noticed on this site over time is a comment in response to a post that goes something like this… “He/She is not a climate scientist. Move on.” That statement may have carried some weight before the 11/19/09 release of emails and contorted data from CRU files. Today the last thing I would want to be known as is a climate scientist.

    This episode has brought shame to the field of climate scientists. Both Mann and Jones have stepped down, and now I’ve learned that Ripkon has left the NY Times. There will be other disclosures about events and data discussed in the released emails.

    My background is civil engineering. Many who frequent this site have far more impressive credentials in wide ranging fields of physics, chemistry, meteorology, oceanography, astronomy, geology, solar physics and palleo aspects of many of these fields. This is a strength of this site. It takes the perspectives of all of these scientific program areas to begin to understand what is occurring that might have some influence on climate. Unfortunately for those caught up in climate gate, they apparently drank the cool aide that allowed them to perch above the overwhelming majority of actual scientists in many fields to preach the gospel of anthropogenic caused climate change, because, it would seem, they were climate scientists. What is a climate scientist? Other than someone caught up in this climate gate mess?

    If I considered myself to be one, and I worked with cooked data from CRU and the other US and UK venerable institutions that are now tainted, I would be angry about what has occurred and would want to be in the forefront of the investigation called for by this author.

  26. It was a sad day in Houston when Dr. Frank retired. Always clear headed, minimum of flim-flam, just the facts, and frequently a little dose of additional knowledge for the public.

    The Houston Chronical, has largely been a pro-AGW organ. The cracks are appearing in MSM.

  27. @ Pascvaks (11:21:24) : I think the professional associations and trade publications need to agree on a set of standards for peer review, etc. Science (GW mostly) has become too politiczed and needs to regain some of its legitamecy.

  28. Mike (11:08:42) :

    “There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief”

    After all of this, you really are a true believer, aren’t you?

    Anyone without doubts, and that is not seriously questioning it all, at this point would have to be.

  29. CLIMATEGATE
    THE LEBENSRAUM FALLACY
    The Lebensraum doctrine of Green activists rests on three tenets they accept with an act of faith:
    • We are running out of space. World population is already excessive on a limited planet and cannot grow without dire effects.
    • We are running out of means. The planet’s non-renewable resources are being depleted by consumption at a rate that renders economic expansion unsustainable.
    • We shall fry. Carbon dioxide emitted by human economic activity causes global warming that shall make the planet uninhabitable.

    When such tenets are quantified, the contrast between true and false stands out sharply.
    Is overpopulation a grave problem? The sum of urban areas of the United States is equivalent to 2% of the area of the country, and to 6% in densely inhabited countries such as England and Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If comparison is limited to land covered by buildings and pavements the occupied land in the whole world amounts to 0,04% of the terrestrial area of the planet. With 99.96% unoccupied the idea of an overcrowded planet is an exaggeration. Population forecasts are uncertain but the most accepted ones foresee stability of world population to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population may begin to decline at the end of this century. With so much elbowroom it is untenable that world population is excessive or shall ever become so.

    Strictly speaking, no natural resource is non-renewable in a universe ruled by the Law of Conservation of Mass. In popular form it holds that “Nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed.” Human usage is not subtracted from the mass of the planet, and in theory all material used may be recycled. The possibility of doing so depends on availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operative it will be available in practically unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, a hydrogen isotope found in water, in a proportion of 0.03%. One cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy than can be obtained from combustion of all known petroleum reserves of the world. Since oceans hold 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, energy will last longer than the human species.

    There is no growing shortfall of resources signaled by rising prices. Since the middle of the 19th century The Economist publishes consistent indices of values of commodities and they have all declined, over the period, due to technological advances. The decline has been benign. The cost of feeding a human being was 8 times greater in 1850 than it is today. In 1950, less than half of a world population of 2 billion had an adequate diet, above 2000 calories per day. Today, 80% have the diet, and world population is three times greater.

    There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998, after having risen in the 23 previous years, and unleashing a scare over its effects. Since 1998 it has been followed by 11 years of declining temperatures, in a portent of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces shaping climate, more powerful than manmade carbon dioxide and anything mankind can do for or against world climate. The natural forces include cyclical oscillation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect of magnetic activity of the sun on cosmic rays. All such cycles are foreseeable, but there is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity. What knowledge exists comes from one hundred fields, such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. with partial contributions to the understanding of climate.

    Devoid of support of solid theory and empirical data, the mathematical models that underpin alarmist forecasts amount to speculative thought that reflects the assumptions fed into the models. Such computer simulations offer no rational basis for public policy that inhibits economic activity “to save the planet”. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the nutrient needed for photosynthesis that supports the food chain of all living beings of the planet.
    Stories of doom circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth has been blamed on global warming: a Himalayan earthquake, a volcanic eruption, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, tribal wars in Africa, heat wave in Paris, recent severe winters in North America, the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five centuries, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota. Evo Morales blames Americans for the summer floods in Bolivia.

    Global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon that finds parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that inebriated masses deceived by demagogues. As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the view of Professor Aaron Wildavsky global warming is the mother of all environmental scares. “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” Their dream is the hippies’ lifestyle of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and vegetarian diet, imposed on the world by decree of Big Brother, and justified by the Lebensraum fallacy.

  30. “Mike (11:08:42) :
    [...]The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. ”

    Hey big word. What IS cognitive dissonance?
    wikipedia (sorry):
    “Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. ”

    Care to explain Mike?

  31. rob m (11:39:45) :
    @ Pascvaks (11:21:24) : I think the professional associations and trade publications need to agree on a set of standards for peer review, etc. Science (GW mostly) has become too politiczed and needs to regain some of its legitamecy.
    _____________________
    Couldn’t have said it better.

    The older I get the more disillusioned and sarcastic I become. Thank you.

  32. I once worked with Dr. Frank with issues coastal erosion while in the NWS at Cape Hatteras NC.

    I have studied AGW. I believe that AGW is real, it’s why we have had the recent warming, but that there are other cycles and “natural variation” also occasionally masking the warming. I believe we also have to do something to change our ways but I take no emotional romance to this, though I consider myself to be very green politically. that said I’m after the facts and want to learn from any skeptic that would give me a little of their time and respect and find out exactly where we depart on theory.

    I’d like to keep the politics out of it if at all possible – no Al Gore’s, just basic physics and chemistry and why it is that so many on this blog are absolutley certain that CO2 or any chemistry is not the reason for the heating.

    forget the hockey stick and the so called climate gate means nothing to me if the basic science is correct starting with this:

    http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

    Somebody please tell me their thoughts?

    Respectfully, Roger

  33. >Coal is a much bigger CO2 problem than oil. Coal, coal, coal – not oil. The big problem is coal.

    How is coal a problem? (except for mountain mining). I live in Pennsylvania and we get a large % of our electricity from coal. Our winds are from the west and Indiana, Ohio and Illinois all burn a large amount of coal. Yet, we have no pollution, except for some in the cities, where they burn NO COAL.

    http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants#Statistical_Data_On_Existing_U.S._Coal-Fired_Generating_Stations

  34. Mike:
    “There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence.”

    Kindly point to what, in this article, leads you to this conclusion.

    “The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.”

    This statement is for propaganda value only. However, you forgot to include that skeptics are “uneducated, gun-carrying, God fearing flat-earthers”. You need more practice with the rhetoric.

  35. “Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.”

    Is this what skeptics think? I am a skeptic, and I say it is not known what the truth is. I could have as a hypothesis that man’s contributions will not lead to catastrophic consequences, but I would hope my fellow skeptics are not so balkanized by the egregious actions of the warmers they leave science behind.

  36. The solution to the energy security problem is simple and doesn’t involve slapping consumers with carbon and other hidden taxes. It would also speed up the task of bringing clean energy and halt this misanthropic carbon cult.

    Governments should lower corporate taxes on energy producing companies by at least 20%. The savings the companies make should go directly into a collective fund in which all the companies of the world come together to create an open source project to discover the all the best means to power the future.

    Once they have worked out the answer the technology will be 80% owned privately by the consortium of companies and 20% nationalised. The latter will be compensation for the tax breaks they received and all the free public thought they received during the globalised open source project.

    Memorise that and spread it, push your governments to think like that, because I can’t think of a better and more fairer solution that serves everyone’s interests.

  37. Scientists and climate scientists should speak out now.

    You know the guy we should email? Ralph Keeling – the son of the father of the CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere – the Keeling curve.

    CO2 is increasing so it must cause something dangerous. Ok that is a reasonable hypothesis. But does it stack up with the evidence.

    He is an honest guy. Email him and ask him frankly does he have doubts that CO2 is a pollutant, if he believes that the scientific case that CO2 will cause harmful Global warming is settled?

    Recently James Randi has jumped down from the fence onto the side of the sceptics. If Ralph Keeling were to do so, the authorities would have to take notice.

    PS this is what James Randi concluded his thoughts on AGW with:

    “From Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s 1891 A Scandal in Bohemia, I quote:

    Watson: “This is indeed a mystery,” I remarked. “What do you imagine that it means?”

    Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…”

  38. Roger (12:01:23) :
    “Somebody please tell me their thoughts?”
    _________________________
    Fair enough. Take a brief refresher on the Little Ice Age for me. What part of climate change from the beginning of the 14th to the end of the 19th centuries was induced by man? What’s wrong with Global Warming? The dinosaurs didn’t mind. Now the flipside: When was the last time you got frostbite? Hypothermia? Wouldn’t you rather be water skiing in Alaska than freezing in Florida? It ain’t the heat that’s the problem. The problem for me is all the d@#n idiot politicians who’ve been fired up to raise my taxes for something called Global Warming when there’s no problem to solve.

    I may sound like one hand clapping, but it’s my hand.

  39. It is fair to assess the outlook of skeptics to read ‘disbelief’. The Believers are the Warmists followers, who are practicing a form of faith. Upon examination, it’s hard to continue blind acceptance when the world around us grows colder.
    The science has been railroaded, the record monkeyed with or erased, the predictions pre-determined, the evidence offered cherry-picked, and the storyline monopolized. Collusion was assured by rich rewards or smear threats.
    Meanwhile, the Climate did an about-face, backwards march from the warm state it has been in for nearly 3 decades.
    It looks like Transylvania out here. What little sun there has been is weak and seen through misty days.
    Record snows cover much of the Northern Hemisphere with ever more serious cold snaps in the wings.
    It’s very painful to watch the official mainstream forecasts beach themselves in twisted agony. Trapped between climactic reversals and warming-programmed models, the big fish find themselves snared in their own netting.
    No exit.
    The smart ones stepped away many months ago.

  40. Policyguy (11:31:04) :

    This episode has brought shame to the field of climate scientists. Both Mann and Jones have stepped down, …

    I know Jones has ‘stepped aside’, but is this true also for Mann? It wasn’t my impression, but it would not be a disaster if I was wrong ….

  41. “Roger (12:01:23) :
    [...]
    Somebody please tell me their thoughts?”

    Roger, the basic mechanism of greenhouse gases is not disputed.
    But: The greenhouse effect is created by CO2 and water vapour.
    These two gasses have a complex interrelationship. It works a bit
    counterintuitively:

    Earth sends radiation upwards (to cool down).
    CO2 and water vapour diffuse this radiation, in the end sending hald of it back downwards and half upwards. due to the physics of absorption and re-radiation, this is always 50:50 !
    The greenhouse effect of combined CO2 and water vapour already did this to ALL the IR even before we started emitting industrial CO2!

    Now what happens when we increase CO2? Here it becomes complicated.
    Basically, the atmosphere becomes optically denser for IR. The absorption and re-radiation happens even earlier – closer to the surface. As a consequence, the higher layers of atmosphere cool down a little and the HUMIDITY DROPS!

    When Pinatubo emitted huge amounts of CO2 this was observed!
    This means: More CO2 –> less humidity –> same overall greenhouse effect.
    It all balances out.

    Don’t take my word for it, read this:

    http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/saturated-greenhouse-effect-wrecks.html

    and for the underlying theory the formulas from:

    http://miskolczi.webs.com/ZM_v10_eng.pdf

    I know it sounds counterintuitive but there IS NO RUNAWAY FEEDBACK BECAUSE THE ENERGY IS JUST NOT THERE.

    Sorry to say this loud but that’s what it boils down to. We already had a maximum greenhouse effect for millions of years.

  42. Here is the question: If within 500 miles, you have places that show warming and places that show cooling, how can it possibly be called global warming? There are a dozen stations in Calif that show cooling, or at least holding, since 1895, at least to my eye… and that is after the data has been homogenized! Explore more at the following link; and for an example, plot the Santa Rosa, monthly temperature vs years, data:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html

    My contention is: since cooling is the normal, natural process and warming is a forced, or external process, if there are places on the globe that are cooling, then the globe as a whole must still be cooling, warming is simply local!
    Stephen

  43. It will be tough for any computer program or form of data manipulation
    to smooth the following ro conform with the warmistas Paradigm:

    From:

    http://www.wunderground.com/US/WI/002.html

    Record Report

    Statement as of 3:57 PM CST on January 02, 2010

    … Record low temperature set at International Falls MN…

    A record low temperature of -37 degrees was set at International
    Falls MN today. This breaks the old record of -34 set in 1979.

    Public Information Statement

    Statement as of 09:15 am CST on January 03, 2010

    The temperature observations below are low temperatures from
    Sunday January 03 2010 as of 0900 am and may not depict the
    lowest temperature of the morning.

    Orr 3e … … . -40
    Ash Lake … … . -39
    Littlefork … … . -39
    International Falls… -37
    Embarrass … … . -38
    kabatogama … … . -36
    Crane Lake … … . -35
    Orr … … . -35
    Cook … … . -35
    Bigfork … … . -33
    Ely … … . -33
    Longville … … . -31
    Pine River … … . -31
    Brainerd … … . -30
    Aitkin … … . -29
    Grand Rapids 15n… … -29
    Cook 8ne … … . -29
    Bruno 7ne … … . -28
    Moose Lake … … . -27
    Hibbing Arpt … … . -27
    Duluth Airport … … . -26
    Two Harbors 7ne… … . -26
    Grand Rapids … … . -26
    McGregor … … . -26
    Eveleth … … . -24
    Hayward … … . -22
    Cloquet … … . -22
    Silver Bay … … . -24
    Finland 3se … … . -20
    Hinckley Arpt … … . -20
    Siren … … . -19
    Grand Marais Arpt… .. -17
    Two Harbors … … . -17
    Phillips … … . -17
    Superior … … . -13
    Sky Harbor … … . -9
    Grand Marais Harbor… -6
    Ashland … … . 0

    All temps are in the key of F not C degrees.

    Reply: Well….Orr 3e could just as well be Celsius. ~ ctm

  44. Mike (11:08:42),

    Could Mike be more wrong? Not likely.

    The AGW true believers are those who put their blind faith in the repeatedly falsified conjecture that a tiny, harmless trace gas will cause catastrophic global warming.

    Scientific skeptics, on the other hand, simply ask questions; they are skeptical of any hypothesis that can not make accurate predictions, and which has no verifiable, testable, real world evidence to back it up.

    Mike’s psychological projection is well known to readers of WUWT, as is the cognitive dissonance endemic throughout the cult of believers in the CO2=CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] hypothesis.

    In his seminal work When Prophecy Fails, Dr Leon Festinger wrote about the cognitive dissonance that afflicted a cult of true believers who awaited the arrival of flying saucers on a particular date.

    The cult believed that the flying saucers would save them, while the Earth and everyone else on it was destroyed. But on the appointed date, no flying saucers appeared.

    Upon disconfirmation of their belief, did the group admit that they were wrong, and disband? No. Instead, they re-set the flying saucers’ arrival date. Again, no flying saucers appeared. And again, they moved the goal posts, announcing that their own goodness and faith had been sufficient to spare the Earth, so there was no need for the flying saucers to appear. But they never stopped believing in the flying saucers.

    The parallels between Festinger’s flying saucer cult and those who believe that a tiny trace gas will cause climate doom are obvious. Neither group can admit that they were wrong. Festinger explains:

    A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

    Certainly a most devastating attack on the CO2=CAGW belief system is the fact that the planet itself is falsifying the hypothesis that rising CO2 will cause rising global temperatures; as CO2 rises, the global temperature is declining.

    The believers’ response: AGW is still happening, but the missing heat is hidden “in the pipeline.” The fact that they can not identify the pipeline, or where the heat is lurking does not matter. So long as they have a basis for their belief, any explanation will do, no matter how far fetched.

    Scientific skeptics comprise the other side of the CO2=CAGW debate. The scientific method requires that skeptics must question hypotheses. Skepticism is the opposite of true belief. Those putting forth a new hypothesis like AGW are also required by the scientific method to be skeptical of their own conclusions. But since the believers in AGW are not motivated by science, they are not in the least skeptical of the AGW hypothesis. They are true believers, no matter what the planet is telling them.

    The only reason that skeptics’ questions have not resulted in complete obliteration of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis is due to the fact that those promoting AGW refuse to disclose their raw and “adjusted” data and methodologies, so no one can question how they arrived at their conclusions. In essence, they are saying, “Trust us.”

    The true believers afflicted with cognitive dissonance really do trust the scientists purveying their climate catastrophe hypothesis, even when confronted with the disconfirmation exposed in the East Anglia emails and the Harry_read_me file, where these same scientists admit to fabricating large swathes of data in a manner designed and intended to support their hypothesis.

    Conversely, skeptics respond with: “Show us exactly how you arrived at your conclusions, by disclosing your full and complete data sets and methods.” Their requests are routinely stonewalled.

    Only someone seriously afflicted with cognitive dissonance would accept “Trust us” as a satisfactory answer.

  45. Somebody please tell me their thoughts?

    Well, first the obvious: The Earth is not a coke bottle.

    But second, although there are some here who question the basic link between CO2 and atmospheric warming, I think the vast majority of folks here accept the “basic physics and chemistry”, but not the convoluted arguments based on global circulation models and the magical “everything is caused by global warming” claims.

    Sure, “all things being equal”, the earth is likely to be warmer with a higher level of CO2, but that’s the trick isn’t it? “All things being equal”.

    And that leaves us with:

    1) how much?
    2) by when?
    3) so what?

    Item 3 is not just meant as a smart a$$ remark. It is asked in all seriousness. So the Earth warms by x amount by year y. What does it really mean to the Earth?

    You can’t answer that with a coke bottle experiment.

  46. Well, Roger, AGW was sold on the basis of the hockey stick. It was sold as recent, dramatic, unprecedented warming. But it isn’t dramatic or unprecedented. That was merely an artful presentation that has taken years to put in context. The AGW people had a big head start and then held both carrot and hockey stick with which to intimidate skeptical attitudes, much less entice researchers into not rocking the boat.

    I don’t know if there is a counter-consensus about CO2. But if I was forced to guess, then I would say that it would be that the Earth’s climate system is too complex and too formidable in that complexity to be overridden by even a substantial increase in a relatively minor if essential atmospheric gas like CO2.

    Otherwise, scientists can argue all night about the complexities involved, but the A signal in the very minor GW of the past 150 years is very faint, which is being generous.

    At least that’s what I get out of my ten years following this. I have always been very conscious of the environment and spent several years of an otherwise misspent youth writing and editing on solar technologies. I looked into the AGW matter cold, and I’ve always sensed that the skeptics have made the better case, starting with the great ones like Lindzen.

  47. Thank you to Neil Frank and to the Houston Chronicle !

    Climategate is but the tip of a very old and dirty iceberg.

    At the base is the unholy alliance of politicians and scientists that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address to the nation 49 years ago, in January 1961.

    Again, thanks!
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  48. Great article Dr. Frank – here we have a man who has spent his life working in Meteorology and Al Gore, a wannabe climatologist, gets the press – we are victims of a dumbed-down media circus. We have a new provincial gov. in N.S. (New Democratic/Socialist) busy chasing their tails with a green agenda, while they are facing a hefty deficit. Their leader took an entourage to Copenfraud and they all returned with high expectations for new green business in 2010. Our schools are filled with this so called “settled” science and our smaller municipalities are on the same path as the big guys. I’m waiting for the day the Old Stream Media are exposed for being co-conspirators in this U.N. driven pseudo-science. Until then we can only keep up the GOOD FIGHT… follow the money!!!

  49. Roger,

    I think there is general agreement that C02 is a greenhouse gas. The question is one of “climate sensitivity.” I’m sure you have heard the term “runaway” global warming, in which the system has positive feedback loops that make the system warmer still.

    Another possibility is the opposite. That is, the planet naturally regulates its temperature. Say for instance, the hotter things get the more clouds there are and temperatures drop.

    The earth has many systems that effect weather in a non-linear fashion. Not including all the main ones or knowing how all the major, and potentially minor, systems work together and affect each other invalidates the climate models until they agree with observation.

    I for one am interested in seeing agreement between observers and modelers. Until such time I will consider myself a skeptic. I simply don’t whether man’s activities are increasing global warming, whether man is not warming the earth, or whether it is so insignificant it doesn’t matter. Unfortunately, there are now questions as to whether the observations themselves are valid. You can read about the Australian Darwin weather system to get a sense of how it seems that data has been manipulated, and Michael Mann’s “trick” also seems to manipulate data by merging the most convenient data to get his hockey stick.

    Meanwhile, I see you are a green. Coal is a source of C02 we could replace with Nuclear. One thing I do not understand about the warmer politicians is why they are not pushing nuclear. It’s clean, cheap energy, but it seems as the South Africans and Japanese are pushing for small nuclear power plants for the emerging world, Luddites in the US are pushing to go back to the cart and buggy days or to try to make “green” energy, whatever that is, work.

    Read wattsupwiththat: all this stuff is here to learn about.

  50. Of course, the warmists will downplay anything that comes out of Texas as being right wing, anti-science and big oil propaganda. Note, however, that Houston just elected its first openly lesbian mayor.

  51. If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU,

    We don’t yet know it’s hackers. But anyway.

  52. “Moreover, maybe someone can explain why every
    time Mann and his colleagues draft another curve, the temperature in 2000
    gets warmer and warmer after the fact…”
    –Phil Jones, in an email dated Fri Jul 23 15:29:11 2004

    I’m getting steamed, and I didn’t even know it. If only Mann would stop drafting curves….

  53. AGW is like one of the zombies from the Night of the Living Dead. Every time you think it’s dead it comes crawling out of the grave and tries to bite you. :-(

    On a more serious note, AGW won’t die because it is supported by our government which unfortunately is run by criminals. They cannot be persuaded by facts, figures or logic. None of that matters. They are dedicated only to carrying out their agenda. This cannot end until we throw them all out of office.

  54. Oh my god you people are just plain insane!

    Did you even read the controversial parts of the emails?

    Aside from standard “We have to make sure we are the ones to get published” BS the statistical methods that has been questioned are standard procedures that any minor stat student would know.

    Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!
    So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!

    Grow a geard will ya!

  55. This will, indeed, go a long way to spread some sanity around locally. Dr. Frank spent many years here as the “go-to” guy on anything weather related and especially hurricanes.
    As someone previously said, he’s a “just the facts ma’am” kind of no-nonsense character. If he says it, then Brother, in Houston it’s gospel!

  56. Roger (12:01:23) :

    As Neal (12:45:44) : says, the historical record is in doubt.

    This is how GISS have adjusted the historical temperature record of the USA

    This has changed yet again & 2006 & 1998 are now tied in the GISSTemp contiguous USA record with 1934 3rd. 1999 now enters the picture as a ranking member of the series too.

    Can whoever did the animated gif add a third layer or replace the 2009 layer?

    I can plot it but scaling to add it to the animation may be a problem for me

    DaveE.

  57. There is no such thing as settled science. The very term is unscientific.

    The term “made up my mind” means what? It means I will no longer entertain additional input, regardless of its veracity and the degree to which it invalidates my opinion at this moment. It means that I will not change my mind, even when confronted with unimpeachable evidence that I am wrong.

  58. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

    Everyone knows the answer is they shouldn’t be.

    Only people with ulterior motives will insist they should be.

    Insisting they should be trusted to those who know they shouldn’t be is a losing proposition.

  59. Neal (12:45:44) :

    In the EUSSR, nuclear is given a carbon equivalence value making France officially one of the most carbon polluting countries in the EUSSR with ~80% nuclear.

    DaveE.

  60. i’m sure i’m missing something but shouldn’t,
    Invariant (03:21:26) : of your “Swiss ETH: Glaciers melted in the 1940’s faster than today” post, get a h/t for this post?
    honorable mention?

  61. From Dirk 12:29

    Roger, the basic mechanism of greenhouse gases is not disputed.
    But: The greenhouse effect is created by CO2 and water vapor.
    These two gasses have a complex interrelationship. It works a bit
    counter intuitively:

    Earth sends radiation upwards (to cool down).
    CO2 and water vapor diffuse this radiation, in the end sending hold of it back downwards and half upwards. due to the physics of absorption and re-radiation, this is always 50:50 !

    COOL and accepted so far so good!

    The greenhouse effect of combined CO2 and water vapor already did this to ALL the IR even before we started emitting industrial CO2!

    All Good here why we have habitable atmosphere – the sweet spot. so then you agree that without global warming we’d be out of luck and earth would a whole lot colder – YES?

    My point the same mechanism that caused this as a habitable (sp) planet was due to naturally occurring CO2 and the mechanism you described above.

    I believe we accept this premise.

    Pinatubo cooling was basically ejection material ash and other chemicals which caused much more reflected sunlight in the stratosphere i,e See “Year without a summer”, 3 volcanoes mainly Mt. Tambora ejection material with more outgoing long wave radiation OLR which then cooled the earth? I do not think CO2 had much if anything to do with that cooling.

    I’ll wait for your response thank you very much! I think this is where might start to differ on causes. I want to explore more of this.

    Thanks Dirk

  62. Neil Frank,…was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87)…

    Ah, I see. So he’s not on the fringe.

  63. Re Hacker v Whistleblower

    Which one “forwarded to” or “copied in” Paul Hudson of the BBC some 6 weeks prior to the data dump?

  64. Throwing them out of office is essential. Another journalist went so far as to say that American voters are the last, best hope for this task, as the rest of the free world is no longer “free.”

    Today, Nature Magazine, called a “great” science magazine, has a front-page write-up on their hero, Steven Chu, the US energy secretary who is going to direct the spending of billions of dollars on global warming. He uses the hockey stick as his evidence. (He just received billions more of stimulus money.)

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091223/full/462978a.html

    Look at his power. Look at the money.

  65. “David Segesta (12:57:30) :

    AGW is like one of the zombies from the Night of the Living Dead. Every time you think it’s dead it comes crawling out of the grave and tries to bite you. :-(”

    It might even be an older evil.

    “Defenses
    The three classic defenses against Satan are:

    mockery, which Satan cannot withstand due to his pride
    sunlight or exposure, from which Satan hides
    the Holy Spirit, meaning “The Advocate” (i.e., defense lawyer), or the Armor of God[1].
    Note that Satan lacks self-restraint, which often leads him to failure. In addition, Satan delights in deceit, even to the point of causing his downfall. ”

    Anybody see some similarities?

  66. P.S., Yall may have heard that Houston had a record-early, snowman-capable event on Dec 4th. I’ve got a really dead banana tree to prove it. This was a bit less than a year after tying the previous record on Dec 12th, 2008. Two snow years in a row is also unprecedented, as far as I know.
    But, as we all know…weather is not climate!

  67. Rob M. (10:27:24) :

    Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.

    Not too many of them around since November 19.

  68. photon without a Higgs (12:54:28) :

    Fair to say that it was “rumored” to be hackers by those with mud on thier faces. The hacker theory is a diversion.
    There are other far more plausible explanations.
    Like someone on the inside bent on delivering a ‘payback’.

  69. So, now you have discovered that there is no good scientific basis to flaw the CRU you move the focus to the dialogue with climate skeptics. Have you read, as I have, the force and venom of much of the rhetoric on this blog? Seems to me the folk at CRU were positively saintly! :-) This contribution moves us nowhere. Just more zombie arguments that are really getting boring, and lets get this straight, talk about all these protesters with PhDs is pure obfuscation. it means nothing unless we know what their PhD was in and what their research and/or teaching record is. Of course every one has a right to their opinion, but definitely not to their own facts, and sure, this guy has an opinion, and even his facts are largely correct, they are just not relevant to the subject and his personal opinions are specious.

  70. PJP 12:56 wrote.

    Thanks for the reply. In the experiment which was supposed to be botched the skeptic of the experiment stated:

    “A greater amount of carbon dioxide will be warmer when heat is applied. This is not a surprise!”

    Well then – admission? to what I’m trying to get at. We accept that CO2 works just fine to stay in our current climate sweet spot and the very admission that when you add CO2 it heats is exactly my point and is a law of physics that was discovered back to 1816 I believe.

    We are not as the feedback level yet which is debatable, but I hear read that CO2 heating the planet does not work and I beg to differ in that if it did not we would be living on an inhabitable planet – NO?

    So with the premise it works OK for sustainable life – why not the argument that too much of it (CO2) drives warming and a lot of it makes it unsustainable perhaps?

    I’m just looking for the logic train here and thanks very much for your respectable indulgence.

  71. John M (12:35:45) :

    Somebody please tell me their thoughts?

    Well, first the obvious: The Earth is not a coke bottle.

    But second, although there are some here who question the basic link between CO2 and atmospheric warming, I think the vast majority of folks here accept the “basic physics and chemistry”, but not the convoluted arguments based on global circulation models and the magical “everything is caused by global warming” claims.

    Sure, “all things being equal”, the earth is likely to be warmer with a higher level of CO2, but that’s the trick isn’t it? “All things being equal”.

    And that leaves us with:

    1) how much?
    2) by when?
    3) so what?

    Item 3 is not just meant as a smart a$$ remark. It is asked in all seriousness. So the Earth warms by x amount by year y. What does it really mean to the Earth?

    You can’t answer that with a coke bottle experiment.

    John all well taken. I’m agnostic on EVERYTHING. It is not my religion as it might be to some, but that plays both ways, but i want to stay with the science because I can learn from you as you can learn from me – I think it’s improvement in dialogue and that’s healthy.

    I think the 1.2.3’s are really important

    all I was after is to see basics apply so we can agree and dispute with some reasonable agreement.

    Thank you John M.

  72. Nick Mabbs (10:44:38) :

    at your link:

    Whistleblower Rewards Program….If you know of anyone who might have details about fraudulent statements or actions by recipients of federal grant funds for climate research….30% of $50 million is more than $12 million. Ask your friends to do the right thing, and be rewarded for doing it.

    Michael Mann is soon going to find out who his friends are !

    Karma police arrest this man.

  73. Mike (11:00:17) :

    The big problem is coal.

    You’re right. There isn’t any where near enough of it being used!

    This is a big problem.

  74. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!
    ———–

    Thank you for that [snip (*sigh*)]

  75. Mike (11:08:42) :

    those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”.

    I see you played the ‘Big Tobacco’ card in your comment.

    Would you list the scientific evidence for the disaster scenarios of ‘manmade global warming’. You used the word ‘preponderance’. So you must have a long list of data to back this word.

    BTW, computer climate models are not data. Science needs data to be real science. So will you list the data that shows disasters are coming to the earth from manmade co2?

    Also, I see manmade global warming disaster believers are using the word preponderance lately. Is this planned?

  76. “Roger (13:21:00) :
    [...]
    Pinatubo cooling was basically ejection material ash and other chemicals which caused much more reflected sunlight in the stratosphere i,e See “Year without a summer”, 3 volcanoes mainly Mt. Tambora ejection material with more outgoing long wave radiation OLR which then cooled the earth? I do not think CO2 had much if anything to do with that cooling.

    I’ll wait for your response thank you very much! I think this is where might start to differ on causes. I want to explore more of this.

    Thanks Dirk”

    For me, my perspective on the CO2-caused warming started to clear up when i realized – through reading WUWT and my own thinking – that the IR absorption must already be almost saturated with tiny amounts of CO2. That means any IR emitted by the surface is absorbed after 10 meters or so.

    From there i started to explore and found Ferenc Miskolczi’s work. There’s debate about the validity of his thinking and it’s too complicated for me… I can only gather an impression. There MUST after all be a reason for the computer models going completely off the rails – they are as it is complete bonkers! (And you can find an assessment of that – with much much kinder words – at realclimate if you dare to go there. They show real temperatures right below the huge span of their own predictions… and say something like : Hey that’s not so bad, it’s only slightly lower than our lowest prediction! We’re good!)

    I don’t know where i read this with Mt. Pinatubo but a quick googling for
    “pinatubo humidity CO2″
    reveals this

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/37eb1l5mfl20mb7k/

    “Quantifying the water vapour feedback associated with post-Pinatubo global cooling ”
    P. M. de F. Forster and M. Collins

    “However, in both the upper troposphere and Southern Hemisphere the observed model water vapour response differs markedly from the observations. The observed range represents a 40%–400% increase in the magnitude of surface temperature change when compared to a fixed water vapour response and is in good agreement with values found in other studies.”

    Ah darn i had it the wrong way round! Pinatubo caused a cooling through ashes. You’re right there.They observed some change in the water vapour they didn’t quite expect from the traditional models:

    “Variability, both in the observed value and in the climate models feedback parameter, between different ensemble members, suggests that the long-term water vapour feedback associated with global climate change could still be a factor of 2 or 3 different than the mean observed value found here and the model water vapour feedback could be quite different from this value; although a small water vapour feedback appears unlikely.”

    Ah well they couldn’t have known about Dr. M’s theory, it wasn’t published in 2004…

    See where this leads? It’s very interesting…. Ashes lead to cooling and humidity. And vice versa. At least that’s what i’m thinking.

  77. “Roger (13:39:43) :
    [...]
    We are not as the feedback level yet which is debatable,”

    Roger, of course there is feedback! But beware! Water vapour gives birth to more watervapour! Of course! But the gain is extremely weak as in a near-saturated absorption it is a very flat part of a logarithmic function – whether we talk about CO2 or water vapour.

    See the grafic by Anthony Watts in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/

    So the “echo” of the feedback gets ever so faint… The alarmists proudly show their feedbacks and their tipping points but what they don’t say is that the feedback must be so weak as to be statistically insignificant.

  78. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    …the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!

    This is a shallow attempt.

    There is more oil in Alaska than in the Middle East. And we all know that oil is untapped.

    There is more resources in Russia than in the Middle East. Putin has become the richest man in the world from it.

    There is enough oil for decades in the US.

    There is no emergency need to develop alternatives. Saying there is in just one more sky is falling hysteria.

  79. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    …the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!

    There’s no need to use caps and yell at us. Many people who comment on this blog know the facts about natural resources. Yelling at them won’t change their minds.

  80. Neal wrote

    Coal is a source of C02 we could replace with Nuclear. One thing I do not understand about the warmer politicians is why they are not pushing nuclear. It’s clean, cheap energy, but it seems as the South Africans and Japanese are pushing for small nuclear power plants for the emerging world, Luddites in the US are pushing to go back to the cart and buggy days or to try to make “green” energy, whatever that is, work.

    I used to be that way about a year ago but have come to the conclusion if we are to make logacl headway we have to incorporate smart small Nukes in the array of new technologies.

    The problem of course is it’s incredible accident possibility and 2. Terrorism.

    But I’m definitely on board.

    I will throw a party if there is no AGW – and I’m open to anybody’s logical science to convince me otherwise. This should not be a religion nor should it be treated lightly as a hoax. We’ll need everybody I think and we have to come to an understanding of the basic premisis.

    Thank You Neal for your indulgence – we are all students here.

  81. As I’ve said before, I know I’m not being censored but I am getting a bit peeved.

    Every post I make goes to the spam bin & as far as I’m aware, I’ve done nothing to deserve that.

    When I make a comment in response to some other comment, by the time my comment comes out of the spam bin, everyone has moved on & the comment doesn’t get read, so it may as well be censored.

    If my IP has been flagged for some reason, there’s nothing I can do about it as it’s static & part of my ID as moderator on another site.

    [Reply: you are not being censored, but your posts have to be rescued. I suspect it is a WordPress glitch, since there are several others in the same situation. ~dbs]

    DaveE.

  82. westhoustongeo (13:27:24) :

    But, as we all know…weather is not climate!

    But climate is climate. The earth has been cooling for years. There has been earlier starting and longer lasting winters all around the world for 3 years. And summers in the Northern Hemisphere have been milder. (I don’t know if this is true of the Southern Hemisphere—can anyone fill me in?) All of these things add up to climate and not weather.

  83. dekitchen (13:36:54) :

    “So, now you have discovered that there is no good scientific basis to flaw the CRU you move the focus to the dialogue with climate skeptics.”

    What?! C’mon, you’re just pretending to be a troll. You can’t be serious.

    Outside of sites like this, where has there been any serious “dialog” with skeptics? You obviously didn’t read the CRU emails, which explained their strategy and the actions they took to marginalize and eliminate skeptical scientists from any debate, and not allowing them to have a voice in scientific journals. And Michael Mann’s organizing the blackballing of a journal that dared to allow a single skeptical paper to be published? That’s OK with you, is it?

    The only reason that, as you say, there is no scientific basis to ‘flaw’ the CRU, is due to the fact that the CRU has unethically jettisoned the scientific method in favor of their predetermined AGW agenda. That is not science, that is advocacy through fabricated propaganda. In other words, they deliberately lied for money and status; they invented large parts of the temperature record so that it supported their AGW hypothesis. I suppose that’s OK with you, too? ‘Fake but accurate’ makes it OK, is that your argument?

    Those are the HE-ROES that you are trying to defend, while you dismiss Dr Frank’s article as “zombie arguments” without citing a single specific example.

    You also disparage Dr Frank’s education as “just not relevant to the subject”. Please note that Dr Frank has a PhD in Meteorology. Which begs the next question: what is your level of education — and in what particular subject? Women’s Studies? Sociology? Home Ec? GED? I would be willing to bet it’s nothing in the hard sciences.

  84. Woo Teva (13:04:12) Nice try!! The emails and all they contain are significant in the extreme. Did you even read them? These guys are in trouble and they know it. As for the oil stuff, it is the only viable alternative at the moment, despite what you might believe. We need energy to move forward and to discover better alternatives. Do you believe we need to go backwards to go forwards? If so, it is you who is insane.

  85. Sorry, another retiree article on AGW, my my, will that ever see mainstream news. Nope. Nice to read it, but the alarmist are regrouping for an counter attack.

    The myth must be shattered decisively. We must choke off their flow of money. We must demand that both sides must receive the same share of Government monies into climate change research. We must put pressure on business that support networks that peddle this hoax that it is in their best interest to support media that are willing to give a balanced account of the science.

    A movie on climategate or a series on HBO or some other cable mainstream provider.

    Unlike Y2K we don’t have a count down date to expose this hoax, we need to shove harder. Unfortunately the Canadian Government has decided that whatever the U.S. government decides is what Canada and other nations will be compiled to do or face trade sanctions.

    It really is an American game, you have the ball now, push, push hard.

  86. I can tell Neil Frank has been dealing with relaying ideas to the public for years.

    He is easily understood.

  87. Mike (11:08:42) :
    There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence. Meanwhile, those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”. The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.

    Mike, that’s a problem of interpretation. I just watched an episode of Wallander, the Swedish detective. He is struggling with himself because he has the impression that the criminals are dark and foreign, but he is trying to ignore this impression because he is worried that it may just be a product of his own racism. I’ll not say how the story ends.

    Sure, you can draw an interpretative parallel with Big Tobacco. But if anything, Big Tobacco illustrated that science can be corrupted. So how do you tell the real culprit? Carbon trading is a potential corruption. How would you make that judgement? How are we to interpret you, when you claim that the preponderance of evidence is in your favour, whilst people here are left scratching their heads over how the evidence could make any sense? Do you always trust experts? Do you trust the scientists who say there is no evidence that genetically modified food is unsafe? Do you support genetically modified food?

    I refer you to David Ball’s question:

    What kind of world do you want to see? Where do you see mankind in the future?

  88. photon without a Higgs (13:59:37) :

    Mike (11:00:17) :

    The big problem is coal.

    You’re right. There isn’t any where near enough of it being used!

    This is a big problem.
    =====================================
    this discussion reminded me about acid rain, i haven’t heard much about it in the last decade. did we fix it?

  89. Roger, you are doing yourself no favors in ignoring ClimateGate and the hockey stick. They tell us exactly everything we need to know about climate science. The lead scientists admit they “can’t balance the energy budget”. They attempt to keep skeptic studies out of journals. Why would they do that? Finally, they “hide the decline” in order to put forth an invented view of historic temps. In other words, to create a hockey stick. What’s so important about that. Why did they think they needed a different history?

    You will find that the reason is the entire science crumbles without it. GCMs that are forced to acknowledge the MWP and Roman optimums must provide natural climate sources for those times or they can’t hindcast. When those factors are combined with huge CO2 positive feedbacks the models fall apart. You don’t even need to understand models to see the problem.

    So, the small, most likely beneficial, 1C rise per doubling of CO2 is not really what you need to focus on. The vast majority of skeptics already accept something in that range. In fact, they look forward to increased crop yields and expanded farmlands. The fact that most of that increase is in cooler northern climates makes it even more beneficial.

    My advice to you is to do just the opposite of what you stated. Dig in and understand exactly what ClimateGate means and why the scientists were so keen on changing history.

  90. “Roger (12:01:23) :
    …Somebody please tell me their thoughts?”

    Roger, I am a now retired R&D chemist. When I looked at the experiment you mentioned the first thing I saw was the warmer line on the graph corresponded to the bottle containing the most mass (mwt CO2 = 44; av mwt air is approximately 29). Thus for an interesting ‘like vs like’ experiment you might (carefully) pressurise the bottle full of air to 1.5 bar, and leave the bottle of CO2 at atmospheric pressure. The mass in each bottle would then be similar, but then the graph would be different, possibly with the relationship reversed.

    My point is that arguably both experiments are in theory equally valid, but give quite different results. It would be hard to extrapolate either to the real world.

  91. Roger (12:01:23) :

    > http://www.picotech.com/experiments/global/globalwarming.html

    > Somebody please tell me their thoughts?

    My mild concerns center around three things:

    1) The experiment is too small to allow convection to occur.

    2) H2O is an extremely important GHG.

    3) The experiment is too small to allow clouds to form.

    In addition, Kevin Kilty’s http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/24/bbc-botches-grade-school-co2-science-experiment-on-live-tv-with-indepedent-lab-results-to-prove-it/ explores several other issues.

    However, my greatest concern centers around the heat source. The issue is long wave IR absorption by GHG. The wavelengths we are concerned about are those radiated by Earth, at say 280K – 300K, not by incandescent lights at 3000K or light fistures at lower temperatures, and not by sunlight (5600K or so? I forget).

    Look at the wavelengths emitted by the Earth and by the Sun, and compare that with the absorption curves for CO2 and H2O, my http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html has one that I think is good. Trying to build an experiment that measures heating under more realistic conditions would be a substantial effort, but it’s the sort of experiment that provides better data. Unfortunately, I’ll be sure to pipe up with “What about convection?” “What about clouds?”

    The bottom line is that reality is far too complicated, otherwise, we’d have our answer by now.

  92. “DirkH (14:20:04) :
    Roger, of course there is feedback! But beware! Water vapour gives birth to more watervapour! Of course! But the gain is extremely weak as in a near-saturated absorption it is a very flat part of a logarithmic function – whether we talk about CO2 or water vapour. ”

    And to bring this into the context of Ferenc M. Miskolczi’s just so its complete: Right after this feedback has increased water vapour a tiny bit – near the surface where water can evaporate – we should see a drop in the temperature higher above, reducing the water carrying capacity of the air above as it gets colder and probably some of it will rain down.

    Also, pondering further, it is never explicitly mentioned in the greenhouse-effect-for-schoolkids grafics, all this GHG of course also reflects some of the incoming IR right back into space. Half of it.

  93. “photon without a Higgs (14:37:28) :

    DirkH (11:58:13) :

    I think he meant denial and not cognitive dissonance.”

    That makes sense. We’re Global Warming Deniers so there’s a lot of denial here. I can relate.

  94. dekitchen:
    “it means nothing unless we know what their PhD was in”
    What part of this did you not understand?:
    “Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology”
    Frank has been a top-notch weather expert for decades, as you or anyone can look up.

    photon:
    “The earth has been cooling for years”
    Couldn’t agree more. I was anticipating the “weather is not climate” argument and ridiculing it in advance.
    Look at this arctic sea-ice graph, for example:

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    25% MORE (at minimum) since 2007!

  95. Mike (11:00:17) :

    > “skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil”

    > Coal is a much bigger CO2 problem than oil.

    There’s a Big Coal corporation? I thought coal companies were not the behemoths
    like Exxon-Mobil are.

    Who do they fund and how do I get a piece of the action?

    (Yes, I understand coal is dirtier and overall has a larger carbon footprint. you responded to a corporate/political statement, not a scientific one.)

  96. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :,

    You need to understand the free markets. If/when fossil fuels starts to run out the price will naturally increase. At this time other sources of energy will become more competitive and replace oil/coal/etc. There is no need for anything beyond the free market to take us into new energy sources.

    So, relax, the world will get along just fine. Don’t let the uneducated doomers convince you with mythical stories. Check the facts for yourself.

  97. It’s smashing to see that this site is attracting a healthy crop of new people who believe that MMGW is a problem.
    This is a good thing! WUWT made me question my beliefs, took a while, wasn’t easy but I thank Anthony and team for their efforts.
    Welcome folks and may the journey be as beneficial for you as it has been for me!

  98. As far as oil (more specifically, hydrocarbons) running out: I can tell you that everybody with a coast (except West and the East Coast US) is hunting offshore for (and finding) same. In the US and abroad, black marine shales like the Bakken, Barnett and Marcellus are quietly producing more and more natural gas and sweet light crude.

    The amount of hydrocarbon reserves has just exploded. Oil companies won’t provide details for competitive reasons. It is probable that a century would not exhaust said reserves.

    Doubt me if you must, but those last three letters on my ID do not stand for geometry. I know whereof I speak.

  99. Wrt politicization of science, I read that Dr Miklos Zagoni has been sacked from his job with the Hungarian Government. The ostensible cause is his support of Dr F. Miskolczi’s work “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” published in Idojaras — the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, 2007, Vol. 111, No. 1 (see http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf).

    Dr Zagoni’s web site is at http://miskolczi.webs.com, and his letter is at: http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P6105/#13018.

  100. ******************
    Mike (11:08:42) :

    There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence. Meanwhile, those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”. The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.
    *****************
    Obviously, you are a Climategate denier.

  101. Dr. Neil is a man of the highest integrity.
    It was my pleasure to watch him over many years.
    What the AGW hack promoters are going to do to him now is only indicative of how corrupt the AGW community is.

  102. All that “fast food delivery paid science” should be question and put under the peoples´scrutiny.

  103. royfomr,
    You can snidely pretend you are arriving at belief in AGW after reviewing the facts, but you are only fooling yourself.

  104. Roger, I am by training and inclination an engineer, not a scientist. I am also getting close to sixty years old. Throughout my life, I have been threatened with imminent disaster nearly every single year that I have been alive.

    One of my earliest school memories is being shown how to “duck and cover” to protect ourselves from a nuclear explosion. Even in grade school we all knew how stupid that was. If you read about Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts, it was flying glass that did much of the damage to human beings. We had one wall of our room that was all windows. If that wasn’t bad enough, we were going to have nuclear winter even if the bombs didn’t kill us.

    Then there was DDT, followed by lead paint, followed by something being sprayed on apples. I also remember that the first astronauts might bring some space pathogen back with them. Then there was genital herpes, which couldn’t be cured, but you didn’t die. This was trumped by HIV, which couldn’t be cured, but you died. The ozone hole was going to give us all cancer, if the asbestos didn’t do that first. Aluminum cans and pans were giving us Alzheimer’s. Lack of fiber was giving us cancer (there have been a lot of cancer scares). Living near power lines was giving us cancer, which has now become using cell phones will give us cancer. We could be hit by an asteroid at any time. We’ve also hit peak oil at least three times during my life.

    And, before I forget, there was the possibility that we were going into an ice age.

    It appears that none of these terrible things had much basis in fact, and in many cases were based upon some ulterior motive, and played upon the fact that many people seem to like to become emotional and upset.

    We could argue the finer points of climate science (which is done very well on this and other blogs), but on the basis of my engineering training, and having lived nearly six decades, I would boil it down to one question: Would you buy a used car from these people who advocate that people are causing the earth to warm catastrophically? Would you trust the word of people that need to use unscientific terms to describe their research? Look at the source, and follow the money. It is also politics, but you asked to keep that out of the discussion. So, who is getting rich from this? Who is gaining power and political influence?

    I’m still waiting for my check from Big Oil, and my heating bill is going up every year. I am a skeptic about everything, having been buffeted by disaster stories all my life. I refuse to be afraid anymore, just based upon the disaster-of-the-month. I will base my fears upon real and tangible events, such as the bear that wandered into my yard a few months ago. That heated up the area pretty well.

  105. Roger, two problems right away are the pop bottle has far more CO2 than the atmosphere and worse, the bottle is under pressure which raises the temperature (all other things being equal).

    As for the amount of warming from CO2, it is real but small. Here are some graphs showing different estimations of the amount of warming from CO2 doubling http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png There is some controversy about those charts, but no quantitative argument that it is much more than shown.

    The real controversy comes from water vapor feedback, otherwise known as weather. It boils down to a few simpler questions, if tropical convection becomes more concentrated in the tropics after the slight warming from CO2, then there will be negative feedback. If not, there will be positive feedback. Also the height of the tropopause will matter and the boundary between tropical and temperate zones. Weather features such as convection are extremely poorly modelled in the climate models (inadequate resolution).

    The real world measurements of water vapor feedback have been measure and argued in both positive and neutral or negative directions. The resolution of the feedback question is far more important than any effect of CO2 itself.

  106. Woo Teva wrote

    “Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: The Oil Will Run Out!”

    Yes…and so will the coal…most of the world is digging out their last morsels with the the notable exceptions of US,Russia,China,India,Australia,Ukraine,Kazastan and South Africa.

    For the other 184 countries in the world a legitimate national debate is whether they should invest in coal based technology where they will be reliant on one of the ‘Big 8′ for supplies or some other method for energy production.

    If I was a leader of one of the 184 countries without significant coal reserves I would try to find a way to avoid becoming dependent on one of the “big 8″..as dependency means a loss of sovereignty.

    Once I had chosen to forego the cheapest method of electricity production I would of course attempt to influence the ‘Big 8′ to do the same…because if they have an energy cost advantage they will prosper and I won’t.

    Hence Kyoto was a flop..China’s GDP skyrocketed as did it’s use of coal..now 42% of world consumption while those nations that chose to forego coal had little or no economic growth.

    Another interesting thing happened on the way to world ruin however. China’s coal use now exceeds it’s ability to mine it. In terms of growth of coal, it is now an importer..and thinks more like the other 185 countries that don’t want to be dependent on someone else for coal.

    Hence China is now willing to make concessions it was going to do anyway for it’s own internal reasons. Whether the science is real doesn’t matter to them…their national independence does.

  107. “westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :
    The amount of hydrocarbon reserves has just exploded. Oil companies won’t provide details for competitive reasons. It is probable that a century would not exhaust said reserves.”

    Do you mean in-situ hydraulic crushing of shale to extract shale gas? That was already in the news. In Lower Saxony in Germany where i live Shell (i think) will start some tests this year AFAIK, we probably have a lot of that.

  108. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    “So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!”

    Well, no, it isn’t. Not by a long shot. You might try looking up what consequences of the changes proposed based upon that lie. They will be far more devastating than any conceivable damage from warming.

    “…the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!”

    No, it won’t. 1) The Peak Oil concept has been wrong for well over 100 years, bit it will probably be correct someday. 2) Even if oil/coal beings to run out it will be gradual. It will get increasingly expensive and alternatives (including nuclear) will become increasingly viable. Alternatives will take over long before the oil “runs out.”

    dekitchen (13:36:54) :

    “So, now you have discovered that there is no good scientific basis to flaw the CRU…”

    You haven’t been paying attention, have you?

    “Have you read, as I have, the force and venom of much of the rhetoric on this blog? Seems to me the folk at CRU were positively saintly! :-) ”

    Actually, believers are treated very well here when they ask honest questions and don’t come across as trolls. (EG: see the response to believer comments on this page.) Skeptics aren’t treated as well on believer blogs. You want venom? Try RC.

    “This contribution moves us nowhere. Just more zombie arguments that are really getting boring, and lets get this straight, talk about all these protesters with PhDs is pure obfuscation. it means nothing unless we know what their PhD was in and what their research and/or teaching record is. ”

    Please show us proof of your PhD in climate science so that you may continue with your trolling discussion. Otherwise, by your own standards, you’re not qualified to voice your opinion. Check the last paragraph of the article, if you’re actually interested in Dr. Frank’s qualifications.

    “… and even his facts are largely correct, they are just not relevant to the subject and his personal opinions are specious.”

    As you say, his facts are largely correct. His opinion is extremely relevant to the discussion. This issue needs a lot more discussion, especially considering the weakness of the believer argument.

  109. DirkH (15:05:27) :

    “… this GHG of course also reflects some of the incoming IR right back into space. Half of it.”

    Not true. Not all IR radiation is equal(Incoming is much shorter wavelength than outgoing). Sorry.

  110. Oh and a remark re free markets, the price of oil and the price pressure that influences when alternative energies become viable:

    Even though new developments make more sources of fossil fuel available, it is noteworthy that the extraction of these resources tends to become more and more expensive. The shale gas i mentioned for instance will be viable at a price of 30$ for natural gas for the heating equivalent of 1 barrel of oil IIRC. So that’s pretty expensive.

    When mankind started exploiting petroleum they went for easy sources first. They had to expend 1 calory of work to get 100 cal back. ATM the fossil fuel industry expends 1cal for a return of 10cal. Historically, societies have collapsed when they had to expend 1cal of work and got less than 3 back from whatever their energy source was. That’s a frequently used doom scenario for our civilization.

    Of course that would be the point where new energy sources would be more than welcome.

    westhoustongeo , your opinion about my numbers?

  111. Well said!

    I always liked Dr. Frank when he was head of the Hurricane Center.

    Thinking out loud here…just take some of the premiere hurricane experts out there:

    Frank….Gray……Landsea…..Maue……

    Not ONE of these mentioned is a Warmist.

    I have a question: Just where….where the is that “small minority” of global warming skeptic scientists???

    Small minority, my ***!

    More like a SIGNIFICANT “minority”.

    And one day in the future, the number will a MAJORITY….because NATURAL SELECTION demands it!

    Under the blue shroud of a severe NH cold outbreak, as CRU and the UKMet and NASA Goddard and their piss-poor leadership continues to lose credibility, that day may happen sooner than later.

    Can’t happen fast enough for me.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :

    As far as oil (more specifically, hydrocarbons) running out:

    I wish human kind would try to use them up.

  113. Roger (14:31:03) :

    I will throw a party if there is no AGW

    Have you checked the data? Climate is cooling. AGW predictions are wrong.

    Of course when you talk about AGW you could be meaning a broad range of things.

    But in general it mean disasters are now on earth and more and even worse ones are coming from manmade co2. There is no science to prove this is true.

    So have your party.

  114. westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :

    As far as oil (more specifically, hydrocarbons) running out:

    One thing that has been a great benefit of manmade co2 and fossil fuels burning being observed with this fine toothed global warming comb is that we’ve learned that fossil fuels are not as damaging to the earth as we once feared.

    This gives us permission to use them much more.

  115. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    Try reading instead of emoting. If you had bothered to follow the threads on Climate Audit, read the Wegman report or any of the sites that are actually trying to replicate the temperature data you’ll find that the so called “climate scientists” are doing anything but using standard statistical methods. And since when was throwing in “fudge factors” a standard statistical method?

    So if the oil runs out: problem solved right? What has the oil running out have to do with whether CO2 is driving the climate to a catastrophic state? Get a grip and stop drinking the Kool-aid.

  116. Roger wrote:
    “The problem of course is it’s [nuclear']s incredible accident possibility and 2. Terrorism.”

    I suspect if you look at deaths from nuclear vs. power generated otherwise, it is one of those safer technologies compared to just about any other.

    With regards to terrorism, I’m not terribly concerned about that in the US. I think terrorists would like to Iran, Pakistan, and possibly insecure sources in the Ukraine, etc. were we don’t have sovereignty, I would imagine that would be the inexpensive avenue for terrorists. The US is the least of my concern.

    Of course, this isn’t the point at all. Even with the dangers, I would like to see Al Gore and other warmers tell us all which is more dangerous, Nuclear or AGW.
    With a complicit press, we have seen how the seas will rise, plague and pestilence will ravage the land, and drought will cause mass starvation.

    I’m not going to hold my breath, because they are pushing a political agenda, not a scientific one. They want it both ways: Nuclear is worse than AGW, and AGW is worse than Nuclear. Once you get to this point, you have to then ask yourself the question “why should I listen to these people at all?” Yet somehow, they have tremendous influence over everyone.

  117. “acementhead (16:48:50) :

    DirkH (15:05:27) :

    “… this GHG of course also reflects some of the incoming IR right back into space. Half of it.”

    Not true. Not all IR radiation is equal(Incoming is much shorter wavelength than outgoing). Sorry.”

    Oh, thanks for the correction. Found this:

    I would’ve thought the suns spectrum was broader. My fault.

  118. DavidE,

    Do you know much about the rationalization for C02 equivalents for nuclear power? I understand there is some C02 released in Uranium mining, but thought France used breeder reactors, which vastly multiplies how far the ore extracted can go.

    Regards,
    –Neal

  119. Janice (15:51:05) :

    > I am by training and inclination an engineer, not a scientist. I am also getting close to sixty years old.

    Me too. Did you stay inside during recess to listen to the Mercury suborbital flights?

    > Then there was DDT, followed by lead paint, followed by something being sprayed on apples.

    ALAR. Don’t forget the cranberry crisis in 1959 that clobbered carnberry sales for that year’s Thanksgiving thanks to two shipments from Oregon and Washington with aminotriazole contamination.

  120. westhoustongeo (15:27:26) :

    Working in “the Patch” myself, I can only concur. New seismic technologies, and new drilling technologies are unlocking previously undiscovered, or undrillable reserves. Marine shales like the Bakken have literally mind-boggling quantities of hydrocarbons. Many of these shales are unexplored, since they were thought to have no economic value. No economic value – those words should always raise questions.

  121. There is a lot of talk about what “skeptics believe” in this article. There is truth in that: the so-called skeptics are basing their opinions on belief, not on facts or scientific evidence. Meanwhile, those who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence for AGW are derided as “believers”. The cognitive dissonance is loud and not so astonishing. The parallels between the way Big Tobacco fought science and the current “debate” are deep and significant.

    Well, well, well. Sceptics used to be deniers. I guess we are moving up in the world.

  122. when I lived in the houston area, dr. frank was an outstanding weatherman and a stand up kind of a guy in the community. I hope he is using some of his retirement to continuing doing that stand up action still. This article sure suggests he is.

  123. DirkH (16:50:49),

    I looked forward to reading Westhoustongeo’s answer to your question.

    But regarding markets, I know that the free market has produced whatever is in demand simply by using price signals. This mechanism has never failed, despite the frantic arm-waving of Luddites and Malthusians alike.

    Petroleum products will never run out. They will become more expensive if they are in short supply [which currently they are not]. But then, everything is going to be much more expensive, if the current AGW silliness persists.

  124. Rob M. (10:27:24) :
    Yea,yea..but he’s not a “climate specialist”,he only dealt with weather what he says about a few out-of-context e-mails stolen from the private,none-more-private, computers of the endlessly harassed planet-saving heroes of the gallant CRU does nothing to invalidate the megatons of research that proves driving SVUs and building coal-fired power stations is killing polar bears faster than was previously thought.

    Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.

    First this guy is a climate specialist, he has a PhD and it pertains to weather, which is a function of climate.

    Second, the emails from climate gate show an active collusion not to allow anyone else into the fold so to speak who was not lock step with them… So… of course he is not ‘a specialist’ since only those blessed by the ones already in charge got to be ‘specialists’. It is an interesting social dynamic that took place in the Climatologists community. It is only know when people can see the disastrous effects of the muddled research that they have really started to care that they were not in the climatologists circle.

    Lastly, please don’t put words in peoples mouths if they have not said them. It is a poor man’s straw man argument. My opponent is not here but if he were here I am sure he would insult you all… Just does not go over well…

  125. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    “Oh my god you people are just plain insane!”
    —-
    Reply: If open discussion and being inquisitive are the hallmarks of insanity, may it strike me and everyone else here.

    “Did you even read the controversial parts of the emails?

    Aside from standard “We have to make sure we are the ones to get published” BS the statistical methods that has been questioned are standard procedures that any minor stat student would know.”
    —-
    Reply: I understand Mann formulated his own statistical methods rather than buying several off-the-shelf statistical packages that were far superior to what he was able to cobble together (It’s also a big reason he’d never let any statisticians review his work–the results would be…well, about what we have found they were–laughable).

    But to counter your assertions, I would say it is you who has not read any of the emails. And I would also submit that, as a scientist myself, their content show professional actions that are deplorable in the extreme. These people truly cannot be called by the name “scientist”.

    “Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!”
    —-
    Reply: This has been handled sufficiently by many comments above. However, you’re asking me to trust “treehuggers” regarding a solution? (An image of Fred Flintstone foot-peddling his “tree car” just struck me.) As an engineer, I have not seen a single solution proposed by “treehuggers” that has merit. And many solutions that I consider viable are being ignored.

    “So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!”
    —-
    Reply: Not if we all invest in a wardrobe that’s geared to hot weather just to find another glacial epoch has arrived. You’re going to look pretty silly on that glacier barefoot and nearly naked. And no amount of sun block will keep you warm.

    [FURTHER REPLY - Peak Oil: Peek and ye shall find. ~ Evan]

  126. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    “Oh my god you people are just plain insane!….

    Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!
    So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!

    Grow a geard will ya!”

    Oh so that means we all need to join Amish or Mennonite communities and go back to 75% to 80% of us working on farms pulling weeds and picking off bugs by hand? We need to give all our remaining wealth to the World Bank so they can invest it in China? We need to hand over ownership of our “wildlands” to the World Bank (UN) so they can complete the take over of the world’s untapped resources?

    The democrats in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore already did major damage to the US with the World Trade Organization. Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified, foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP.

    http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm

    The “treehuggers” have been hijacked by the bankers – FOLLOW the MONEY

    “An analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries shows the world’s finances are in the hands of a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first report of global concentration of financial power…” http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few

    “Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032

    One of the most influential documents in the global warming “debate” is the Stern Review. Lord Stern, a former World Bank Chief Economist, became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.

    Then look at this comment by Richard Folland

    The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.
    Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs. Parties could, for example, reform and improve the Clean Development Mechanism. This is criticised, sometimes justifiably, but its achievement in incentivising private finance for clean energy projects in developing countries is undeniable. Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment and therefore emissions reductions which are urgently needed.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427366.800-great-and-good-share-hopes-and-fears-for-copenhagen.html?page=1

    The first UN Earth Summit in 1972 as well as Kyoto was run by a big oil exec, Senior Advisor to the World Bank, trustee of the Rockefeller foundation (Standard Oil and Exxon) and member of the Club of Rome. He is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and now an advisor to the Chinese government, working for a Construction and Engineering company in Beijing. He is Maurice Strong implicated in the UN oil for food scandal.

    Playing “The Sky is Falling” tune is just playing into the hands of the manipulators. Activists keep stating big [insert evil industry] is behind some kind of planned and well funded denial scheme when it is the exact opposite.

    Here is the members list for the European Climate Exchange and what the World Bank thinks the market is worth now and it view of the the future.

    People will notice some of the names on the list such as: Shell, BP and every major bank on Earth. Get real, they want to turn carbon into a Trillion dollar market, and they are not far from doing that. Why would they want to sow any doubt of any kind?

    Members list:

    http://www.ecx.eu/media/pdf/members%20list%20-%20october%202009.pdf

    09.pdf

    World Bank:

    http://wbcarbonfinance.org/docs/State___Trends_of_the_Carbon_Market_2009-FINAL_26_May09.pdf

  127. Anthony, might I suggest that you give all your moderators a healthy rise in pay. They are truly magnificent !! ( I know that they do not get payed, but if they did, they would rightly deserve a substantial bonus in this months envelope.) If I had the resources, I would supply said envelope. *SIGH* If only there were some truth to the “big oil shill” debasement. Now I must go and carpe my diem !!

    REPLY: [ I've heard a rumor our pay will be doubled! ;-) -mod]

  128. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :

    Oh my god you people are just plain insane!

    Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!

    I assume you know that we have had the technology to manufacture synthetic oil for about 70 years and using the current technology is is cost effective at about $90/bbl oil prices?

    All you need is a carbon bearing feed stock (trash, bio mass, etc.) water and a source of heat.

    Even if the natural hydrocarbons were completely exhausted (highly unlikely in this century), we could manufacture essentially unlimited amounts of synthetic oil limited only by our supply of feed stocks and a source of process energy (Nuclear).

    Hydrocarbon fuels, lubricants, chemicals (plastics) are not going anywhere in your life time or you grand children’s life time.

    Larry

  129. While we are busy investigating the CRU fiddle consider the fact that the GISS and NOAA data is compliant with that of CRU.

    CRU was adulterated by the heroes at CRU so that it fit the results of the other two. Ergo the other two must be “fudged” as well.

  130. CO2 – a lot of ado about nothing. The discussion about it is like listening to ancient philosophers discussing how many devils can dance on the head of a pin. So amusing and entertaining. Unfortunately it is not so entertaining when these philosophers create problems for the rest of us in our daily lives.
    My take on the global ‘thing’ is quite simple. Many will disagree because they want to keep things complex.
    Earth has 2 forms of heat – external and internal. Internal is geothermal, regardless of the
    causes.Humanities influence is infinitesimal in this situation. External is the sun and the moon (if you want to take the latter into consideration). The atmosphere is an insulator with specific properties ie density and composition. If I went to a chemical engineer or an insulation company and claimed extraordinaty abilities from my product because I changed 1 of the components from 200ppm to 800 ppm, I would be laughed out of the building.

  131. I read parts of the comment section in the Houston Chronicle (it long) and the AGW proponents have now picked up the meme that since the AP (Associated Press) says the Climategate docments don’t disprove AGW then it must be so!

    Please, the AP is a committed liberal media group.

    The AP is no more qualified than anybody else to judge the documents of Climategate and likely less objective because they have a liberal bias (like many MSM).

    Just because the Associated Press says so?

    Fat chance — take that argument back to the barn and throw it in with the pigs where it belongs.

    It stinks…

  132. “Just thought I’d point that out to save the warmists a job.”

    You mean eliminating some jobs. Think about their children, have you no heart?

  133. James F. Evans (00:03:17) :

    “I read parts of the comment section in the Houston Chronicle (it long) and the AGW proponents have now picked up the meme that since the AP (Associated Press) says the Climategate docments don’t disprove AGW then it must be so!….

    Just because the Associated Press says so?

    Fat chance — take that argument back to the barn and throw it in with the pigs where it belongs.

    It stinks…”

    PALEEASE do not insult the pigs. They are very clean and smart… which is more than I can say for the Associated Press.

  134. Neal (17:44:31) :

    Sorry, as far as I know, the only rationalisation for carbon equivalence is that nuclear is bad and cannot be counted as CO2 reduction.

    DaveE.

  135. wsbriggs (11:38:32) : The Houston Chronical, has largely been a pro-AGW organ. The cracks are appearing in MSM.

    We have a “Chronicle” out here, often called the San Francisco Comical…

    The San Jose Mercury News is often called “The Murky News” for short too ;-)

    You would think when folks have widely used derisive names for papers they would catch on that folks just think they have lost value.

    (Oh, and with the only demographic that still regularly gets the papers being the old folks, they went and shrunk the page size and type size. Talk about your boneheaded move… I could (barely) read it before without finding my ‘readers’, now it’s hopeless. Who wants to buy a blurry blob of errors?)

    So papers can be as pro-AGW as they want. It will just reduce their readership faster as the cold cognitive dissonance torques people off.

    Want readership to grow? More articles like this one (and test your font size on a bunch of 60 somethings with morning coffee and no readers to hand… ;-)

  136. Woo Teva (13:04:12) : Did you even read the controversial parts of the emails?

    Oh yeah. Have my own private searchable archive of them. Suborning the peer review process. Character assassination of competitors. Blackmailing journal editors (unless they agreed to collusion to suppress evidence against AGW theories). Admissions that they had data after they claimed to have deleted it. Solicitation of fraud and other illegal actions (deletion of email is against the law in the USA and some of The Team are based here while others collaborate here; deletion of documents to avoid FOIA; suborning the FOIA process, etc.)

    And So Much More! I’m still working through it all. I’m pretty sure we have solicitation of money under false pretenses along with presenting false witness to government officials too. At least in the USA those are often criminal actions with significant penalties. But we’ll see.


    Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!

    Oh Gak! The “Shortage Running Out” scare again. The Short Form:

    Natural oil “runs out” in about 100 years. We can make synthetic at a profit at anywhere from $56 / bbl (being done now in L.A. California using trash as the feed stock) to $90 / bbl using coal (that lasts for several hundred more years) or from farmed trees or algae at lower prices than coal. We never run out of trash…

    Tar sands are presently economical at about $30 / bbl and Canada is ramping up production rather fast. Several hundred years supply.

    Nuclear power is functionally unlimited ( 10,000 to 40,000 years with present land fuel stocks. “hundreds of millions” with sea water extraction at economical prices using already existing technology).

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/

    Brazil has found oil at unexpected depths as has Standard Oil. This says our old rules on “depth’ were wrong and we have a whole new ‘shell’ of depths to explore. Brazil found “several billion bbls” in one field alone. We have no idea how much world reserves have increased, but it is large.

    And much much more:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    Oh, and we don’t run out of space, minerals, food, etc either:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/

    So even a lie regarding the climate change is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!

    What an odd form of logic. Lies are in my own best interest? Sorry, but no.

    What is in my own best interest is to see through the lies and to see the world of prosperity and abundance available to everyone on this planet for centuries to come if we will just let go of the paranoid shortage fantasies and set about the job of building a future. You can never make the right design choices based on lies. Only the truth shall set you free, and only the truth leads to good engineering and economic products.

    So please, realize we are not ‘running out’. We have plenty of space. No one need go hungry. And the path to zero population growth leads straight through modernity and prosperity. College educated women with careers and living in vibrant free economies have the fewest children (sorry, men “don’t count” in population dynamics…) while those living in rural poverty have the most.

    So to “save the planet” and to do it “for the children” and “for our future” we need to get everyone on the planet to a modern European / North American / Japanese level of mechanized urban prosperity as quickly as possible. THAT saves the planet.

  137. If the science is settled, we should cut the funding for research.

    The money can be used to build nuclear power plants, the cheapest alternative to coal plants. Perhaps even cheaper.

  138. The IPCC was set up with the prior assumption that AGW was a reality, and the scientists were funded, not to produce a dispassionate assessment of that reality, but to provide credible confirmation of their master’s thesis. Of course this was not science, but propaganda similar to that employed by the Nazis using science to demonstrate the inferiority of the Jews.

    One has to enquire about whether there is an underlying motive for the promotion of AGW, rather than AGW itself. Questions like this have usually been answered by following the money, and one awaits the revelations with great interest.

  139. So writes a meteorologist. But what would he know, he’s only a meteorologist, not a – wait for it – CLIMATE SCIENTIST!

    Funny how people who actually know something about the weather and are content to call themselves meteorolgists or climatologists seem to be by and large CO2/AGW sceptical.

    Could it be that “Climate Science” is a field invented by and for AGW believers who either choose not to call themselves meteor-/climatologists, because that’s not where the grant money is, or who in addition may not do so because they are in fact neither?

    If so it shouldn’t surprise us if they “overwhelmingly” endorse AGW. Nor should it impress us.

  140. Woo Teva (13:04:12) :
    “Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!”

    Reply: WRONG! E.M.Smith reply is on the money, read and learn.

    In addition to oil there is still plenty of low hanging fruit from hydroelectric schemes and as technology progresses new forms of energy will be developed (e.g. Fussion Reactors). When forecasting the future of the development of the human race, never underestimate our intelligence and creativity. Things tend to be developed quicker if our backs are against the wall. The coming cool climate period will test this to the maximum degree, but I’m sure we will get through this period with minimal loses.

  141. At least one of the emails talked about misappropriation of funds. Where I come from that would get me some nice jail time.

  142. # Tenuc (05:38:42) :

    Woo Teva (13:04:12) :
    “Even if you distrust the treehuggers, the fact remains: THE OIL WILL RUN OUT!”

    Reply: WRONG! E.M.Smith reply is on the money, read and learn.

    In addition to oil there is still plenty of low hanging fruit from hydroelectric schemes and as technology progresses new forms of energy will be developed (e.g. Fussion Reactors).

    Fusion reactors sound nice and clean, but in reality they are very, very dirty at the moment. You produce the heat in the fusion process by slowing the nuclear fragments produced in the process. This leads to radioactive waste in large quantities. I am sure in time we can deal with it, but that is off in the future sometime. Till then, I would be much more in favor of breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing. We know how to do that right and it would get rid of a lot of our waste fuel problem. Unlike the “greens”, scientists and engineers are optimists. The greens would have us all huddling around a fire, being sick and dying early.

  143. I don’t want to go too far off topic, here, but I do want to point out that the world will not run out of oil…unless it is taken off of the free market. Even assuming we know of every single oil reserver there is on the planet (we don’t), before we get to the point where we are anywhere near emptying them one of two things will happen: A.) rising prices will drive technology advances to increase production rates from known reserves (get more out of the ground than is currently financially justifiable); or B.) rising prices will reach a point where it justifies switching to another source of energy which, up to that point, had been less cost effective than oil — something like bio-fuels and renewable energy.

    The problem with “peak oilers” is the same as with other “alarmists”…you forget to look at history and economics. There was a very similar “scare” regarding the primary power source in the late 1800’s — coal. And the talking heads at the time (including some very prominent economists) talked the same garbage about cutting back, limiting use, etc. They even dismissed the idea of oil, OIL, being used as a replacement — wasn’t cheap enough, and was in too small a supply! It would NEVER work, they said.

    A great, more full example on why we will never run out of oil (or any other freely traded resource) can be read here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=760789&p=1

  144. Where are the responses from the skeptic bashers? Any rebuttal ? I am here because I want to learn. I am willing to read the rebuttals and digest them. We may disagree, but we are not disagreeable. The discussion is what I enjoy and it is what makes this site worthy of my time. That being said, E.M. Smith, I have always been impressed by your posts and research. Every post continues to impress and I thoroughly hope that one day I may be able to present my viewpoints as clearly and eloquently as you, sir. Many thanks.

  145. Immolate (13:15:40) :
    I had to read through your comment several times, it was so enjoyable. Believe is a word best left to religion.

    Roger (14:31:03) : “and I’m open to anybody’s logical science to convince me otherwise. ”

    First, it is my contention the science currently can not determine what the effects will be of additional C02 in the atmosphere. I’m sure you have heard of the butterfly effect, when small changes in environment cause enormous changes in large complex systems. A good example of this was Bush being elected due to the butterfly ballots in Florida. The unintuitive ballots gave Bush the election and the world is a different place. On the other hand, the press calling Florida for Bush early may have easily have removed many votes for Bush too, another example of how small individual mistakes can have huge changes.

    The modelers are creating models of what they know, running them on computers to take as many factors as they know into account. But as has been mentioned, there are many systems that aren’t understood at present, and so I’m waiting for the observations to match the models. They got it wrong this last ten years. That doesn’t mean the hypothesis of AGW is wrong, only the models aren’t good enough to convince me.

    More disturbing is the evidence that the AGW scientists are tampering with observation, trying to crush opposition to their hypothesis in nefarious and conspiratorial ways, and intentionally running afoul of freedom of information act requests, thereby stopping others from verifying the results. If my understanding of these acts is correct, those who participated should lose their tenure and their positions.

    It seems your primary question is “If additional C02 should warm the planet, then how can it not?” My hypothesis is that if the earth had a great deal of climate sensitivity, life would not exist in the form we know it. While it is posited there have been major events (snowball earth, for instance, meteor strikes, massive volcano activity) that have changed life significantly and in fact may have been necessary for life. Here is a layman’s article that discusses this (in wattsupwiththat, of course): http://tinyurl.com/ydsp3em.

    Furthermore, If Bentley’s Lord Monckton is correct, our current biofuel activities as spurred by AGW are starving to death millions due to a global increase in food prices. The stakes of AGW is not some parlor game, but a massive restructuring of the economy . Someplace in this blog, you will find a discussion about what the Senate climate bill would do in terms of the carbon footprint. It puts the allowed individual carbon footprint back to the 1800s. But still, politicians who are acting on this “science,” which in my view at present is a painter’s incomplete painting of the world, are talking about major and massive changes. Changes that are unthinkable to most of the world regardless of the potential costs.

    Let us say AGW is actually happening. Al Gore and the Democrats should convert from coal right away to nuclear. They aren’t doing this because they are using AGW as a tool to achieve a political agenda. And nuclear is cheaper than coal anyway.

    Second, if there really were a pinch, let us say C02 is really bad, there is a startup company run by an ex Microsoft exec that points out there has been global dimming in the past due to volcanic activity, and we could simply push some sulfur up into the atmosphere at the cost of $250M/year or something. Perhaps it is really a few billion, but compared to what those who would control our lives, it is a tiny amount.

    Nevertheless, as open minded people, like Immolate says, we must keep open minds. No one knows the truth, and “belief” is a word for religious people, not scientists. At present, all the data being used to publish AGW papers should be released, along with their methods. There are too many smoking guns, too much evidence data has been tampered with, and too much conspiring to stop contrary scientific papers.

    In my view, being a skeptic is the only correct position at this time. Even someone who has as a hypothesis C02 is causing a global rise in temperatures should be skeptical of their own hypothesis. Instead, many of these people seem to be using unscientific methods to arrive at the conclusion of their hypothesis.

  146. Roger (12:01:23) :… I believe that AGW is real, it’s why we have had the recent warming, but that there are other cycles and “natural variation” … I’m after the facts and want to learn from any skeptic that would give me a little of their time and respect …. forget the hockey stick and the so called climate gate… if the basic science is correct… Somebody please tell me their thoughts?

    Roger, if it’s not too late, try reading the Primer I wrote (click my name). What I found was that it was difficult for me to be really really certain on any single issue with the limited understanding of science I had at that time; but put all the arguments together and the evidence against AGW is overwhelming. When I’d looked into every crevice of the science, I wrote it all up as this Primer. And gradually I gained certainty about every single detail as well.

  147. Jim(15:38:40) Thanks for the great link to physicist Jasper Kirkby at CERN. The lecture and slides on climate record data, cosmic rays and cloud experiments was illuminating. An opportunity to watch a real scientist at work!

  148. Woo Teva (13:04:12) : Oh my god you people are just plain insane! … Grow a geard will ya!

    No idea if this drive-by type will ever return to actually debate or even discover that debating here is possible, unlike some places… might it be possible to have a standard invite-to-debate tag that moderators can add?… then we can also count how many respond.

  149. ShrNfr,

    “Fusion reactors sound nice and clean, but in reality they are very, very dirty at the moment. You produce the heat in the fusion process by slowing the nuclear fragments produced in the process. This leads to radioactive waste in large quantities.”

    It depends. Tri + Deu = He fusion certainly does produce radioactive waste as a result of the fast neutrons released in the process. On the other hand p + B = 3 He fusion is anuetronic and does not create radioactive waste.

    There is currently research into aneutronic fusion using IEC (intertial electronic confinement) instead of tokamak, of which Polywell fusion is the best known example.

  150. A bit O/T, but one of the promising technologies is cold fusion.

    I know, I know… everybody’s laughing.

    But the reason “cold fusion” isn’t in the news much anymore is because they’ve changed the name–it’s now know as LENR, for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, and there’s a lot of headway being made overseas in places like Japan and Israel. Indeed, a number of patents have been granted regarding the phenomenon and recently a medical device which operates on the basis of LENR has been marketed. Even the US Navy has demonstrated LENR in their laboratories. They’ve even gotten the theory pretty much figured out, but there’s still a lot more to investigate. It is a very fascinating field and I believe there’s a lot of potential there, too.

  151. shrnfr:

    I reckon we can use about 60% of fossil fuels left in the ground if we have a hope in avoiding the most troublesome consequences of climate change!

    At what point do “greens” (as you call “them”) become realists opposed to pessimists? Refecting what I understand to be the reality of a situation (http://stevehynd.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/uk-met-office-we-have-no-chance/) does not make a pessimist (in fact I am quite the opposite).

    What I often wonder, about those who speak so clearly against climate change, is have you ever considered you are wrong, and if so what the reprecussions are. They are far more severe than if the “believers”are wrong!

  152. @steve4319

    I disagree. The impact of cap and collar regimes on western economies will be non trivial while the likely impact on the climate will be close to zero.

  153. Bring the TRUTH to light is all I have to say.I’m sick and tired of manufactured datd and reports to further political agendas and put everything on God’s good earth under the light of politicaly Correct.Let’s get back to truth and reality and attempt to see where we’re realy at,or is it to late for the inconvient truth.

  154. Gail Combs (02:24:38)

    I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have insulted the pigs that way — they are way cleaner than the Associated Press.

  155. steve4319 (08:22:16) :

    “…What I often wonder, about those who speak so clearly against climate change, is have you ever considered you are wrong, and if so what the reprecussions are. They are far more severe than if the “believers”are wrong!?
    ————-
    Reply:

    AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    It is time for this nonsense to stop!

    I have been on WUWT for several months and I cannot recall anybody “speak so clearly against climate change” as Steve claims. Everybody here acknowledges the fact that Earth’s climate changes–Indeed, the only constancy about climate is that it DOES change. More accurately, you may call us “Climate Realists” and I charge that you are wrong; that as a “believer” you should consider the consequences of subverting the economy based on fear mongering and lies. Global warming policies as promulgated by the UN have already killed people through starvation and misappropriation of funds worldwide and what they plan is even worse. People who yell “Fire” in a crowded theater just to watch people scramble (or sell bandages at the exits to the injured so their consciences feel less guilt) are the lowest form of humanity.

    As a geologist, I can tell you, as can others, that this past warming trend was minuscule compared to climatic states the earth has experienced over the geologic record.

    This link helps put it in perspective:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    AGW propagandists (i.e. “believers”) are “climate scientists” that tell us this last warming, which, by the way, stopped ~10 years ago, is a world-stopper. As far as I can tell, being a “climate scientist” in the mold of Michael Mann and Phil Jones is nothing to be proud of considering how they have politicized and criminalized the science. Far more geologists and scientists in related fields, and yes, many who are climate scientists but haven’t sold their souls to the devil, have been studying aspects of Earth’s climate far longer and have found no basis for running around screaming “The Climate is CRASHING!”

    No, we speak truth to corruption. You have taken the term “climate change” hostage and made it your own, castigating those that are sane/realists in their pursuit of the truth about the science, and this shall be your undoing.

    Being an AGW “believer” really means believing in that which is not true and no good can come from it. And your line of action has been and will be far more costly in both lives and treasure than a realistic assessment and approach. Indeed, the tide is turning; what “believers” once considered to be the horrible result of greenhouse gases appears instead to be a significant benefit to the majority of earth’s inhabitants. But such a contrary conclusion shouldn’t be surprising when your original thesis is based on elitist factual inexactitudes.

  156. How can you not trust what Dr. Neil Frank says? With a flattop as sharp as his, he has got to be smart. ;)
    But seriously, a PhD in meteorology and has been studying hurricanes, since at least 1961 when he joined the NHC, and how they form and interact, and some can still dismiss him with a wave of their hand. Now talk about being in “denial.” If anyone truly has any inkling of an idea of how climate and weather interact, it is my flattopped brother-in-arms, Dr. Neil Frank. And if he ain’t buying, it’s a safe bet it ain’t happening. And thankfully, I can trace my skepticism of AGW all the way back to him. He taught me that any forecast beyond 3 days was iffy at best. So he has a valid point, how can we trust any kind of forecast if they can’t get it right inside of 10 years, let alone 100. Right on Dr. Frank. Right on.

  157. Steve4319, might I refer you to the question in my post at David Ball(11:25:35). Same question for you. And anyone else who might care to answer.

  158. That has been my argument all along. If these computer models can’t get a 5 day forecast right why in the world would we believe a 1, 10, 50, or 100 year forecast??? Shoot just look at the hurricane forecasts, those are rarely accurate on point of impact even at only a few days out.

  159. You don’t need to print this, however I apologize for poking fun a scientists in general I do know there are many honorable scientists who don’t work to produce the desired results that suit the source of their income. But there are many that are paid off by political organizations, large pharmaceutical, weaponry and medical products companies to produce favorable results in studies and research. Which in turn result in harm to human health and ultimately cost innocent lives that are giving the genuine scientists a bad name. As you know there are also scientists who have invested their life’s work in proving one theory that has recently been opposed by their peers. Which they in turn attempt to censor or ridicule. Not unlike corrupt lawyers and politicians giving the honest ones a bad name.
    I am not anti-scientist, in fact I have worked with them for over 8 years. And I am truly grateful for the quality of life they have achieved for us and if not for medical advancement my daughter would not be alive today. However I see a lot of corruption in science which drags it’s reputation down.
    I do apologize again, thanks for listening.

  160. David Ball (17:01:46) :

    Steve4319, might I refer you to the question in my post at David Ball(11:25:35). Same question for you. And anyone else who might care to answer.

    David Ball (11:25:35) :

    Mike, I will now pose a question to you that I posed to a poster named Skeptical Skeptic on another thread. What kind of world do you want to see? Where do you see mankind in the future?

    Answer:
    A world of truth, kindness and cooperation. Instead of a world that contains lies, hatred and competition.
    As for mankind in the future, that I cannot predict and neither can anyone else. However I am positive and optimistic.

  161. Zoso ( a Zeppelin reference, yes? It is my fav Zep album) You provided a fine response, one which I fully endorse as well. What I am trying to get across, and this very important as a parent myself, is that you cannot run an MRI scanner in the forest. We need economic stability and energy stability to find the solutions to the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, due to subsidies and technological shortcomings, solar and wind are not yet “there”. We cannot go forward by going backward as some AGW proponents wish upon us. Historically, it is children who suffer the most during economic and climatic hardship. My hope is that things like Climategate will cause all research (all science) to become open and honest, instead of paranoid and guarded. Perhaps this is a pollyanna star trekish view of the future, but I believe that mankind can rise above the greed and corruption, but we have to work together, which if I am not mistaken, is in line with your hope for the future. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

  162. An excellent summary of the situation by Dr Frank. We need more scientists like this speaking out to tell the truth.

    I am sick of hearing that scientists who dissent from AGW are somehow second rate. This is blatantly untrue and no one should believe it. Just a few eminent examples as well as the author of this article:

    Professors Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Ian Pilmer, Tim Ball, Bob Carter, Aynsley Kellow, Oliver Manuel, Paul Copper, Larry Vardiman and Tad Murty, Frederick Wolf et al

    Drs Pat Michaels, Roy Spence, S Fred Singer, Henrik Svensmark, Vincent Gray, John T Everett, Yuri Israel, Madhav Kandikar, Tom Segalstad, Kiminori Itoh, David Wojick, Charles Wax et el

Comments are closed.