Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge

UPDATE (Sunday 6/26 8:30AM): After choosing the quote of the week this week (see above here) I’ve come to the conclusion that former Senator Wirth is mentally incapable of debating the issue in a rational manner, would likely not respond, and thus there is no point in keeping this as a top post. – A

Former Senator Tim Wirth invoked the nuclear option yesterday. Small mushroom clouds are now appearing across the world as people read what he said. This is my response to him. It will remain the top post for the next few days or until Mr. Wirth responds to the offer made below.

I got the email about this bit of climate ugliness just after having dinner Friday night. I couldn’t do anything about it while I was driving home from Sacramento then, and it is a good thing, because it made me quite angry. The hour long drive gave me time to think about it and remember what the world was like before global warming supposedly made the weather worse.

First, let me remind everyone who former Senator Tim Wirth is. For that, we have to go back to June 1988. Dr. James Hansen is getting ready to testify before the Senate on what he thinks is a serious problem, global warming. The sponsor for Dr. Hansen? Senator Tim Wirth.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hansen_1988_congress.jpg?w=348&h=242

Dr. James Hansen testifies on global warming, June 1988

If we left it there, there would really be nothing to say beyond the fact that he’s the guy who put Hansen in front of the Senate and launched the cause. But Senator Wirth was culpable in foisting stagecraft onto the Senate to make them “feel” the problem in the form of a well crafted lie.

If any of you have ever been in Washington DC during the summertime, you’ll be able to relate to this. Senator Timothy Wirth made sure that room was “steamy”. This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:

TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.

DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?

TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]

Watch the Frontline video here. [UPDATE: The Frontline video has gone missing, but here it is on YouTube]

So it goes without saying, that if the case Dr. Hansen was to make before the Senate was so strong, why did Senator Wirth need to make use of cheap stage tricks?

And, why would anybody trust this man’s opinion on climate today, knowing this?

Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race people with the tired old “denier” label, then set his foot on fire, then stuck it in his mouth trying to tell about half of the US population (according to recent polls) that he’s “coming after them” because they don’t share his opinion.

From CNS News, an extraordinary story coming out of a UN press briefing Wirth participated in, here’s the relevant portions:

Former Dem Senator: Climate Change Caused U.S. Floods, Fires; We Need ‘Aggressive Campaign To Go After’ ‘Deniers’

Friday, June 24, 2011
By Michael W. Chapman

Sen. Wirth said: “Well, Barbara, that’s again, back to the major question we’ve been talking about. First, you and I know that while you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires – and we’re seeing exactly that sort of thing in the United States today with increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas, the kind of dramatic climate impact that we have seen in the United States already. Slowly but surely, people are going to connect the dots. They’re gonna’ understand that this is precisely the kind of significant change that has been predicted and that we’re slowly but surely seeing.

“Happily, there are people like those in, the weather forecasters who’ve come together, you know, into a major group to try to discuss and to understand the impacts and how to explain climate change and climate impacts when they’re doing the evening news and talking about the weather, which is where most people in the United States get their information. That’s going to be, I think over a period of time, an extremely important set of steps to take.

“We also have to do a better job of having the scientific community being able to explain what they’re doing and how they’re doing it and why they’re doing it in very clear terms that are understandable to 300 million Americans.

“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.  They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.

Here’s the audio clip, Wirth’s remarks are at about the 3 minute mark.

==================================================================

I can’t print my initial reaction.

First let’s address Mr. Wirth’s claims of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”.

To do that, we have to assume his claim relates to Dr. Jim Hansen’s warning in 1988 that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the then 350 parts per million, to the now 390 parts per million made the claim of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” happen.

Wirth probably isn’t familiar with the revolutions in technology making worldwide reporting a nearly instantaneous event. I address that issue here: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective.

It seems like we get more of these things because news media and social media and people with cameras and cell phones are everywhere. Take for example the train crash today in the desert east of Reno, NV, which was covered mostly by citizens on the scene. Hardly anything escapes electronic notice anymore.

Second, Wirth’s hero, Dr. James Hansen, claims that we need to return to 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the Earth “safe” and avoid what Wirth claims we are seeing. An entire cult following has developed around this number, thanks to Bill McKibben and his 350.org eco-worriers.

That 350 number isn’t based on peer reviewed science. Hansen’s 2008 paper citing the 350 number was NOT peer reviewed, nor even published in a journal at the time. he just foisted it onto his website and a compliant press distributed it without question. No, that 350 number is based on the fact that was the value of CO2 when Jim Hansen and Wirth set this story loose in the Senate with the stagecraft. As Andy at NYT says “Back to 1988 on CO2, Says NASA’s Hansen

1987   348.99
1988   351.44
1989   352.90

Source: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

So if what Wirth says is true, we probably didn’t have much in the way of ” increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” back around the time of that magic 350 ppm number right?

Let’s have a look:

Drought:

The most severe drought in California’s history was the 1987-1992 drought. It is the drought Californians are most familiar with due to its recency and severity.

North America as a whole has experienced numerous droughts. When pioneers first began settling the Great Plains, they were told that “rain follows the plow.” However, it was an unusually rainy period. In the late 1880s drought struck and over half of the settlers lost their land. Many people are familiar with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the lesser drought of the 1950s. What many people don’t recognize, however, is that over the past 400 years droughts equivalent to the 1950s drought have occurred several times per century (Priest et al., 1993; NOAA Paleoclimatological Program, 2000).

Source: College of the Siskiyous

And it wasn’t just California, it seems India was hit hard in 1987, when CO2 was 349 ppm.

India’s Drought Is Worst in Decades

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, Special to the New York Times
Published: August 16, 1987

”I am 75 years old, and I have never seen anything this bad,” said Naufat Mohammed, a white-bearded farmer, looking at the cracked earth around a well. ”This is God’s will, but God is angry with us.”

The drought, which Government officials say is unprecedented in intensity, has already spread through most of the country, hitting hardest in the northern grain belts. There wells, reservoirs and water tanks are running at dangerously low levels or are already dry. Rain 75% Below Normal

No mention of CO2 or global warming in that article, they just blame God. It works  just as well.

It seems the drought continued in the USA though summer 1988. Just a few weeks after Jim Hansen and Tim Wirth scared the bejesus out of a bunch of sweaty senators, Time Magazine put up this cover story:

Time, July 4th, 1988 CO2 at 350 ppm

Of course, in the US, drought was worse in 1934 when CO2 was at something around 290 ppm

The extent and severity of the driest year of the Dust Bowl in the United States as indicated by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, 1934

The extent and severity of the driest year of the Dust Bowl in the United States, 1934
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000

====================================================================

Flooding:

One only has to look at Dartmouth’s 1988 Global Register of Extreme Flood Events to see that 1988 was a busy year in flooding globally while CO2 was at 350 ppm.

Bangladesh got the worst of it that year.  Monsoon rains flooded about two-thirds of Bangladesh in 1988, killing nearly 5000 people and destroying farm animals and crops.

http://www.itnsource.com

But even though much of the USA had drought conditions in 1988 when CO2 was at a “safe” level of 350 ppm, there were still some significant flood events:

U.S. Floods of 1988

By C.A. Perry, B.N. Aldridge, and H.C. Ross of the USGS

Many areas throughout the United States were affected by drought conditions in 1988. There were few significant widespread floods. A few flash floods occurred during the summer months due to localized, intense rains from thunderstorms. Several flash floods occurred during the summer.

On April 1 and 2, southern Kansas received 3 to 7 in. of localized rain, which caused flash floods. New Orleans, Louisiana, received 7 to 9 in. of rain on April 1 and 2 . Severe flooding occurred, and $18 million in damages resulted. Albuquerque, New Mexico, had $3 million in damages as a result of flash flooding on July 5-9.

Tropical Storm Beryl hit Louisiana and Mississippi in early August. The storm brought as much as 15 in. of rain to coastal counties of Mississippi. Significant flooding occurred on the Biloxi River in Mississippi.

Hurricane Gilbert, the first category five hurricane to make landfall since 1969, struck Louisiana and Texas on September 15 through 19. The storm caused coastal floods in Louisiana and produced excessive rains across Texas and Oklahoma.

=====================================================================

Fires:

Fires approach the Old Faithful Complex on September 7, 1988.

Well, who could forget the year of fires in 1988, especially at Yellowstone just three months after the Jim and Tim show before the Senate? The Yellowstone fires of 1988 together formed the largest wildfire in the recorded history of the U.S.’s Yellowstone National Park.

The Yellowstone fires of 1988 were unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service, and many questioned existing fire management policies.

California and Texas had major wildfires in 1988 too, with Texas having in March the Big Country Fire burning 366,000 acres. In 1988, while CO2 was at that “safe” 350 ppm level there was also the Great Lashio Fire, Lashio, Myanmar, with 134 killed , and 2000 buildings destroyed. I’ll bet Mr. Wirth, you never heard about that one.

===============================================================

So with all these horrible disasters happening in 1988 while Jim and Tim were turning off the AC and opening windows in the Senate hearing room to get all those senators hot and bothered over global warming at 350 ppm of CO2 concentration, the world went on as usual with droughts, fires, and floods, just like it is doing today.

But our former senator Wirth “knows” that the present batch of drought, floods, and fires are caused by that 40 parts per million increase since 1988. Those same events in 1988 must have had another cause because CO2 was at the “safe” 350 ppm level back then.

So Mr. Wirth, I call BS on your statement, and in my opinion, your opinion on the matters of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” is what I would describe as not grounded in historic reality, or henceforth to be known as wirthless.

And yet, you say “…as I’ve suggested before,undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.

Alrighty then. Mr. Wirth, let me give you the perfect venue by which to challenge skeptics, a “target rich environment” if you will. It’s right in your old stomping grounds in Washington DC, so it should be no trouble for you.

Next week, on June 30th and July 1st, hundreds of skeptics, including me, will be in Washington for a conference.

6th International Conference on Climate Change: June 30-July 1

The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011 at the Mariott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road NW. Timothy Ball, Ph.D., Larry Bell, Ph.D., Robert “Bob” Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. are among the confirmed speakers.

STANDING OFFER TO TIM WIRTH:

Federal and state elected officials can attend ICCC6 for free, but I’m sure Heartland will also open that offer to you as a former elected official.

I’m the first session speaker on June 30th, and to give you ample opportunity to tell the worldwide skeptic community what your plan is to “go after” us and “make a battle of it”  I yield my 15 minutes to the former Democratic Senator from Colorado.

I’ll sit quietly and respectfully during that 15 minutes sir, and then it will be our turn to tell you what we know.

Mr. Wirth, this offer is genuine.

If your intent is genuine, bring it. I’ll expect to see you there, as you won’t find a better venue or opportunity to make good on your threats. You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it. I predict though you have not the intestinal fortitude. Prove me wrong.

You can contact me at this web link, or contact Heartland directly here. Given their longstanding policy of inviting the opposition, I’m certain they’ll work to make it happen and I’ll gladly assist.

- Anthony Watts

About these ads

356 thoughts on “Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge

  1. Inevitably one of many puns but the AGW exponent in the above missive is making Wirth-less
    claims.

  2. Nicely done, Anthony; best throwdown since Kurt Russel asked Billy Bob in “Tombstone” whether he was gonna do somethin’, “or just stand there and bleed?”

    Don’t hold your breath, though. For the professional warmists, it’s always been about ideology, the “narrative”, and what they want to believe. It’s never been about evidence. You can’t use logic, reason or observed data to deconstruct a position that wasn’t built on them in the first place.

  3. As a politician, this man found his place, you got it right Anthony,” Wirthless”

  4. I hate to be the bearer of bad news Mr Watts but this site and real climate are coming close to being irrelevant as all things seems to be pointing to no problem or maybe an ice age

  5. An excellent exposé, Anthony but …

    Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race with the tired old “denier” label [emphasis added -hro]

    There are Jewish people, most of whom follow – to varying degrees – the religion of Judaism; but there is not now – and never has been – a “Jewish race”.

    Would you mind changing that phrase?! Thanks :-)

  6. “Go after” the deniers implies a campaign of persecution, and this climate bigot actually thinks that skeptics have gotten free ride?
    Good, dignified response Anthony (especially considering your understandable anger). Challenge Wirth to debate, watch him swirm out, then add him to the list of cowardly warmists who refuse to engage in civilised discussion.

  7. Good offer. This is his chance to proove his sincerity, if he ignores your offer you know he has no interest is seeking the truth through science and debate.

  8. Nice post but, well, the likes of Mr Wirth just don’t do serious debate. They never have. They never will.

    Propogandists are all about one-way information flows. Soft-ball interviews with compliant media hosts/`interviewers’, is, in this day and age, their usual go.

    The Bear bets his cave that `Wirth’ will duck, or simply av oid the offer.

  9. His recent comments would be deplorable enough coming from one of the common deluded, but former Senator Wirth was a deceiver from the get-go.

    I have too much respect for human excrement to consider him a piece of it.

  10. cinbadthesailor: “A new wave of McCarthyism is rolled out!”

    Well Mr McCarthy at least had the advantage that he was almost right, and he was on the right track.

    But even Mr McCarthy didn’t begin to appreciate the true scale of what was really going on (all confirmed by documentation that became available with the fall of the Soviet Union).

  11. This will probably be a rerun of the famous James Cameron wimp-out at the OK Corral.

    It will be amusing to watch.
    My guess is that he will be all set to take you down, kick yourt ass and wipe the floor with you… only to discover that he has a dentist appointment that day…

  12. How often do priests get into a theological debate about there religion?

    I’d make plans for Mr Wirth not turning up Antony and remember your blood pressure last thing us WUWT lurkers need is something happening to you.

  13. A typo is in the standing offer- it says July 30th instead of June 30th. I wouldn’t want Mr. Wirth to “accidentally” miss his opportunity to set us proles straight. Surely the Enlightenment would follow.

  14. It is so sad that the modern environmental movement has been hijacked by the CAGW alarmists. So many real world problems are being ignored or put on the rear burners as a result of the true believers religious like belief that essential plant food is somehow a pollutant. So many other of the world’s problems are being left behind while the world governments throw good money after bad on the IPCC crowd and their junk science “research”.

    Over-fishing of the oceans.
    Destruction of native habitats.
    Slash and burn agriculture.
    Pollution of inland and coastal waters by agricultural and industrial run-offs.
    Poaching of endangered animals.
    Lack of clean water in much of the third world.
    Preventable diseases, especially among children lacking basic immunization.
    Under-education of girls.
    Enslavement of children and often their Mothers.
    The selling of virginity of girls.
    Poverty and impoverishment.
    Killing of innocent civilians in wars of retribution.

    Are all real problems of today that suffer because the environmentally minded have been tricked into believing that global warming is due to human activity in the first place and a bad thing in the second and more important than all of these other problems that are real today, not some computer projection of the future. Shame on them for embracing this drivel.

    In a hundred years people will read about CAGW and shake their heads in disbelief that so many people were tricked by such a small group of scoundrels. They will put CAGW in the same scientific category as Geocentrics, Cold Fusion, Piltdown Man and The Fountain of Youth. In the future, the parallels between the IPCC the Yakuza will be studied by PhD candidates in History and Sociology. Carbon emission reduction schemes will be likened to Medieval bleeding, Papal indulgences and witch burning.

    Meanwhile, as the CAGW alarmists become even more desperate and shrill, the real problems of the real world fester on and on. The truly environmentally minded find it all so sickening.

  15. Most people, especially politicians and those in the media, know nothing about the shenanigans of June 1988 in Washington DC. How can the majority of the world`s people now be informed of this scandalous misleading trick?

  16. Historically the worst flood in Bangladesh history was 1883, or there abouts. Bangladesh did not exist as a country then so it will be discounted.

    Fires in Australia a few years ago was blamed on Global Warming. The truth is that in the year before the Greens had forced a law preventing home owners clearing weed growth from their gardens to ‘help the environment’. This plant matter provided plenty of fuel for the fires when they did start, which was nearly an annual event. Many people died as a result of this stupid law.

  17. History is littered with political ranters like Wirth, spewing out scary nonsense in an attempt to influence what they hope are an impressionable gullible public. Unfortunately, a few of these ranters are sometimes successful and some form of disaster inevitably follows.

    The fact that the scary stories have no substance – as demonstrated by Anthony’s post – is irrelevant, as somehow or other the more you tell the same lie, the more likely it is to become a generally accepted “truth”.

    Hansen, Wirth and the Team know this and not surprisingly it is the cornerstone of their alarmist spreading strategy.

    There is one thing we can be certain of: In a few years from now, ‘climate science’ will be remembered in the same way as we remember the Phlogiston Theory today – a convenient idea, which made sort of sense at the time, but one which did not stand up to scrutiny.

  18. Don’t hold your breath. Since advocates are peddling a bogus theory, they are unlikely to defend it to sceptics face to face. They make empty threats instead, but soon back down after giving consideration to the fact that sceptics often have a greater grasp of physics and climate than them

  19. I do not think he will show for the first session. Still, best to correct what appears to be a typo in the link ( that should say JUNE 30th, I believe)

    STANDING OFFER TO TIM WIRTH:
    “I’m the first session speaker on July 30th, and to …”

    REPLY: Fixed, thanks -A

  20. “undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers”

    Perhaps Mr Wirth is planning to set up a ‘Committee for Anti Climatic Activities’ henceforth to be known as CACA.

  21. There’s no Jewish race. It’s like saying the Protestant race. It’s true, that the Jewish religion tends to be “robust” down through the generations, giving Jews a strong sense of collective identity, especially since they can trace their existence back to the days of the Old Testament.

    Judaism is derived from that sense of identity, and a shared history and religion. But it is most emphatically not a race. There are Jews from many different parts of the world with many different ethnicities…

  22. Cowards never attack openly. There is a greater chance of me becoming a millionaire by the time I’m done typing this sentence than for the senator to appear and debate with you. Just remember that his day is done. These are the last desperate attacks of a dying religion.

  23. “Anthony why don’t you let him post here?”
    Sorry I have seen nothing on here that makes me think anyone has stopped Mr Wirth from posting a response to any comment made !
    This is a free and open forum which he chooses not to use , that’s his fail not Anthonys!

  24. In the unlikely event that this foul mouthed bigot turned up the problem would be that you can’t reason with unreasonable people.

  25. Wish there were 6 rating stars at the end of that article, Anthony – or 7 or 8 or 9 or……

    Just great !
    But do mind your BP though -good men are scarce. :)

  26. hro001 says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:10 am
    “…but there is not now – and never has been – a “Jewish race”.”

    Too bad Hitler didn’t know that… a lot of “non-jews” lives could have been spared.

  27. Tim Wirth, former Sen. for CO.
    Set the warming debate all aglow
    His logic is Wirthless
    His delivery mirthless
    And his manner stinks more than B.O.

  28. I think it would be great to get up a full scale debate. Five important alarmists v. five skeptics. The teams could have 20 or 30 people on them, but limit the on-stage debate teams to 5 is my idea.

    The topic would be CO2 and its effects, or lack thereof, and the record of climate history. Are we experiencing anything dramatically different than in previous times?

    A day long event filmed and put on climate blogs (and any other interested news outlet) across the world. I would love to see JoNova on the debate team as she looks better than Mr. Watts. :) I think the debate should be held on one of the Caribbean Islands. (hurry while they are still above water!)

    What about a prize? We could get donations from people around the world to fund a prize that would go to the winner’s favorite charity as a pot-sweetener to get the “consensus team” to come and play. Perhaps even give half the prize to each side so that they would know that they were doing good for charity.

    There must be some way to get the alarmists on a stage someplace where they had to defend their ideas in a fair fight. Must be someway.

  29. Unfortunately, as the MSM will not cover your offer to the former senator. the uninformed majority of the general public will not be aware of the BS that Wirth is producing and will accept his comments at face value.

  30. hro001 says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:10 am
    pokerguy says:
    June 25, 2011 at 3:33 am

    “…there is not now – and never has been – a “Jewish race”.”
    It is a pity Hitler did not know what you know… many innocent lives would have been spared.

  31. A little song for Mr. Wirth, in mirth.

    Sir Joseph’s Song

    from H.M.S. Pinafore

    When I was a lad I served a term
    As office boy to an Attorney’s firm.
    I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
    And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
    I polished up that handle so carefullee
    That now I am the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

    As office boy I made such a mark
    That they gave me the post of a junior clerk.
    I served the writs with a smile so bland,
    And I copied all the letters in a big round hand–
    I copied all the letters in a hand so free,
    That now I am the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

    In serving writs I made such a name
    That an articled clerk I soon became;
    I wore clean collars and a brand-new suit
    For the pass examination at the Institute,
    And that pass examination did so well for me,
    That now I am the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

    Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
    That they took me into the partnership.
    And that junior partnership, I ween,
    Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
    But that kind of ship so suited me,
    That now I am the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

    I grew so rich that I was sent
    By a pocket borough into Parliament.
    I always voted at my party’s call,
    And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!

    Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
    If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
    If your soul isn’t fettered to an office stool,
    Be careful to be guided by this golden rule–
    Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
    And you all may be rulers of the Queen’s Navee!

    W.S. Gilbert

  32. “Slowly but surely, people are going to connect the dots.” Yes indeed, Mr. Wirth, they are “connecting the dots, which is why the CAGW scam is on its way out, as well as lying, delusional pols such as yourself who continue pushing your pseudoscientific manmade climate change religion.
    So, you want to “go after” climate skeptics/realists? Go ahead, climate punk; make our day.

  33. This is the same guy who is the Club of Rome member and UN Foundation head who was quoted as being of the opinion that: “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

    Reference: “Science Under Siege,” by Michael Fumento,1996, p362

  34. I don’t think Wirth will show, but not because of any of the reasons above. Strategically, if you’re invited to debate an opposing view which you believe has no credence (as it seems is Wirth’s opinion of anti-AGW arguments), then you’ve lost the debate minute you accept, because merely by accepting you legitimize the intellectual value of the opposing view. Thus Wirth will not show!

  35. Anthony…its a sign of the times! In my local press ‘Central Somerset Gazette’ I was amazed to read from a local official with Friends of the Earth, that ‘certain people of a mature age’ (I have a grey beard) who questioned the reality of climate change as well as the case for wind turbines (in our beautiful and ancient Vale of Avalon) were ‘anti-environmentalist’ and ‘should be stopped by whatever means’.!!!

    The paper printed my response this week…..first, asking our Friend of the Earth where he stood on local democracy (it had to be over-ruled to build the first turbine), and to expound on his ‘whatever means’, and second, challenging him to a duel…powerpoints at dawn, as it were, in our locally historic Assembly Rooms, and requesting he bring some aides (that CRU and Hadley would be welcome) – he would need them,…I would arrange the TV coverage. We could spend the morning on the science, the afternoon on the policy implications.

    What’s the betting of a no-show?

  36. The thing to check on is what, now that former Senator Wirth is retired on a big fat pension he and his fellow Senators and Congressmen give themselves, else is he doing to make a buck? Who is he working for?
    How is he making money promoting AGW?

  37. henceforth to be known as wirthless

    [Emphasis mine]

    Thy will be done. From now on, in any post I make, I will substitute that word for anything of similar meaning.

    Go get him Tiger… Thems fightin words.

    I would note that clearly the good(?) ex senator from hackensack is making use of the new, calmer tone that the democrats heralded a few months back? You know, in response to a member of congress being shot as a result of “heated rhetoric”. There should be an equal effort to point out his anger and rhetoric. Nail him on this first to stagger him back a bit and put him on the defensive. Then go after his flawed reasoning. Making use of the “peer review” aspect, as that is the favoured weapon of choice for the alarmists. And above all else maintain a civil and dispassionate tone. Kind and understanding even. Like a parent talking to a favoured child that has done something stupid. Getting heated will fall right into their trap. You have already shown him your weapons though, and they will roll out some big guns to brush those issues aside. Spend some time preparing the arsenal of irrefutable areas of bad science and poor policy. Hit them both scientifically and politically. And have backup in the form of peer reviewed literature. There is more but I don’t want to list it publicly…

    Darn. I wish I could help…

  38. A comment above made me think. Why hasn’t any AGW proponent attempted to put their case here? They would have direct access to a very wide audience of umm.. doubters?

  39. Sometimes some claims just don’t pass the eye test. One such claim is that extreme weather events are NOT becoming more frequent. I can understand the argument that such events are not the result of AGW, and I appreciate the postings on this site and others that explain the meteorological basis for a particular event. But I don’t think there are many lay people, whether AGW skeptics or not, that don’t think we’ve seen a significant increase in extreme weather events. The best databases of weather history — Munich Re, NOAA, WMO — all say that such events are becoming more frequent. Moreover, the extreme events that are becoming more frequent are those that would naturally be associated with warming (surface and ocean) and increased moisture — floods, droughts, heat waves, fires, tropical storms, etc. To cite an extreme event in the past does not undermine the fact that there are more of them now.

  40. Jeez, what’s with the pedants getting their pants in a twist over the phrase “Jewish race?” “Race” doesn’t just have to pertain to ethnicity; it can be colloquially interchangeable with “culture” or “nationality” or “family” or any number of things given the appropriate context. Get a life and focus on the issue.

  41. In my real life “battles” with renewable energy warmists all they could show was the two versions of the Hockey Stick of Michael Mann and didn’t even know their own water vapor feedback story. So they were not beaten, they were pulverized and i let them out of the battle with agreeing a little to their peak oil fears which they used as a kind of get-out argument. Could have continued with Julian Simon’s Ultimate Resource argument but let them get out alive.

  42. Says – hro001 says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:10 am

    An excellent exposé, Anthony but …

    Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race with the tired old “denier” label [emphasis added -hro]

    There are Jewish people, most of whom follow – to varying degrees – the religion of Judaism; but there is not now – and never has been – a “Jewish race”.

    Off topic, but, Judaism isn’t a club. You can become a Jew, but its like being adopted into a family. “Race” is a very broad category. Family, Tribe, Nation are closer than the vague “people” hro001 wants to substitute. Let’s give Anthony a pass on “Jewish Race” – it’s a little archaic, but okay. It’s not like we are talking about Baptists.

    We were all insulted by the Honorable? Tim Wirth. But what honor is there for one who insults the truth?

  43. Buzz Belleville says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:21 am
    “”The best databases of weather history — Munich Re, NOAA, WMO — all say that such events are becoming more frequent. ”

    Oh puulease. You do understand that the insurance industry has a vested interest in a scare scenario so they can ramp up the premiums?

  44. You have some crazy guys over there Anthony – here we have Wirth’s Circus to fool the gullible while entertaining the genuine. I guess for science this stands beside dropping an egg into vinegar to dissolve the shell and declaring it a demonstration of ocean acidification – you can’t change addle minded advocates like Wirth!! and the circus needs more clowns!!

  45. Seems your anger has gotten the better of you again Mr. Watts. Past weather events do not mean the climate is unchanging. To claim so is silly.

  46. cinbadthesailor says:
    June 25, 2011 at 1:38 am

    “A new wave of McCarthyism is rolled out!”

    The opposite actually, many AGW supporters around the world, have (strong) sympathies for Left-wing politics … (even the greens)

  47. So you are saying that Hansen is “Wirthless”? If so I agree. I sadly note in passing that one of the pioneers in passive vertical atmospheric microwave temperature sounding, Prof. David Staelin of MIT has been diagnosed with cancer and is expected to have less than a year to live. I will have the privilege of attending a symposium being given in his honor next month to celebrate his life and his great contributions to science and industry. He is a great person in addition to a wonderful and talented scientist/mentor.

  48. “…………we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires……….”

    After over 30 years of global warming, the hottest decade on the record and the hottest two years on the record the results are in. ;O)

    FLOODS
    “Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.”

    http://itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1128/

    FIRES
    We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3237261/abstract

    “…….a number of studies indicated a decrease in boreal fire activity in the last 150 years or so.”
    Girardin, M.P., A.A. Ali et. al. 2009. Global Change Biology, 15, 2751–2769 [pdf]

    DROUGHTS
    Precipitation trend 1979 – 2004
    “Trends have spatial variations with both positive and negative values, with a global-average near zero.”

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025393

    [Jimbo notes also: The biosphere and the Sahel have been greening in recent decades.]

    WEIRD WEATHER???
    “Here we report results on those parameters of which we have had experience during the last few years: Global surface temperature, Cloud Cover and the MODIS Liquid Cloud Fraction. In no case we have found indications that fluctuations of these parameters have increased with time.”

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2011.01.021

    *ACE hurricane index at 30 year low.
    *Rate of sea level rise flattening.
    *Lack of recent warming trend.
    And so on………………………………………………….
    How many times does AGW scaremongering need to be falsified?

    Timothy Wirth is the President of the United Nations Foundation
    That explains everything. ;O)

  49. Some politicians go to far, running their mouths off like spoilt brats who don’t get their own way, when the science doesn’t go how they want it to they throw a tantrum and resort to intimidation and bullish threats, Maybe their slimy tactics work for them in the political arena but if they are trying to bring that sort of despicable behavior into the scientific and engineering communities all sides of the debate need to see sense and show them the door (or window) from the debate once and for all.

    There are people who have spent our working lives building schools, hospitals, factories and involved in the building of all manner of infrastructure and advancing science needed for the operation of a secure and prosperous society and there are people who wouldn’t even know how to change a simple plug, with mouths the size of the known universe (metaphorically speaking) which appears to have evolved for the sole purpose of putting their unintelligent, know it all pampered foot in it, their own self interests are clear, and their interests in science only goes as far as their daily megalomaniacal behavior suggests.

    Anthony, don’t get mad, cooler heads will prevail.

  50. But the news everywhere tells us that the weather is behaving badly.

    “The Weather Isn’t Getting Weirder”
    Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.””

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

    “The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project” – “Gilbert Compo et al.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/full

    These Warmists have nailed their flags to the mast and it’s not easy to accept you are wrong. Can we not assist them in finding a way out of the big hole they are digging themselves into?

  51. The Gaian priests always wish their murderous criminal “scientists” would do a better job of explaining the Holy Scriptures to the heretics.

    Well, I also wish they’d do that.

    I wish they would take Crichton’s challenge. Expose themselves to an open public televised debate with an agreed-on moderator and full use of graphics, against an opponent like Eschenbach.

    So far they have completely failed to do that, which tells everyone that they have no case to argue. So far they have done nothing but cuss and shout and hurl imprecations, like any arrogant charlatan quack faced with exposure. They’ve had 35 years to prove their case, and they haven’t even started. They haven’t presented ONE piece of evidence.

    Look, as long as the quacks and the realists continue having segregated conferences, the quacks will continue to win. They have all governments, all churches, all schools, and nearly all media on their side. Most of all they have Wall Street on their side, which overwhelms those other institutions.

  52. It seems to me that following the Al Gore diatribe by this one from Wirth that there is a co-ordinated attempt by the warmist cult to try to derail the Washington conference. A last stand, as it were, to hold on to their discredited corrupted science at all costs.
    Your response Mr Watts presents an excellent analysis of the falseness of his argument, but the Senators will buy it hook line and sinker. It would be a simple matter to have a low cost leaflet produced bearing your blog, and of course your invitation to debate with him. Would there be any possibility of placing such a leaflet in the hands of every Senator in the US?

  53. Wirth, before ICCC6:
    ““…as I’ve suggested before,undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.”

    Wirth, after ICCC6:
    “I have met the deniers, and they are us!”

    I know, he probably won’t say that,

    but he should.

  54. … Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. …”

    History repeats itself well! Reminds me of Germany in the 1930s …
    What’s next? Another witch hunt era? The 5th Inquisition?
    Furthermore, this is a lot of psychological projection.

    … They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop. …

    Guess who actually got the free ride …? More projection! Really a true (reality) denier!

  55. Orkneygal says:
    June 25, 2011 at 3:12 am

    It is so sad that the modern environmental movement has been hijacked by the CAGW alarmists.

    Actually it was the environmental movement that hijacked climate science.

  56. Shevva says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:55 am

    How often do priests get into a theological debate about their religion?

    Well, I’d like to think that the good ones do it whenever the opportunity arises…

  57. Wirth is just echoing the current Alarmist spiel, with the IQ of a parrot. It is an echo chamber, with the “It’s time to rally the troops” talking-point droning from lungs devoid of both hearts and ethics.

    Alarmists made a choice years ago. It was OK to fudge the truth, and basically to lie, because in their minds “the ends justified the means.” Now the lie is catching up with them.

    Expect the behavior of cornered rats.

  58. I am both a long-time physical scientist and an even longer-time writer. “The Elements of Style” by Strunk & White offers to writers the fundmental principle of “simplify, simplify, simplify”, and I follow that principle to this day, as both writer and scientist (showing the definitive evidence against the greenhouse effect, for example, as no one else has). But beyond both scientist and writer, I am an independent, and I bow to no dogma, no authority, when I have facts to the contrary. So I say, “deny, deny, deny”, and proclaim myself a total denier of the climate “consensus”, and I will use the word “denier” as I see fit, as a writer, not according to the politically correct mob. And I agree with those who have already stated that Wirth will not stand up to a real scientific debate (which is different from a political one — a rhetorical one — the only kind he knows); even “expert” climate scientists and physicists will not do that, they only want to “expound” to the masses, as recognized, admired experts. But I applaud you for making the offer.

  59. sceptical says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:37 am

    Seems your anger has gotten the better of you again Mr. Watts. Past weather events do not mean the climate is unchanging. To claim so is silly.

    More silly than saying that droughts, floods, fires, etc. are increasing when the data indicate otherwise?

  60. Buzz Belleville, I have personally downloaded graphics from NOAA that show that just about every bad climate metric you can think of are near historic LOWS about now. I call you. You claimed they are becoming more frequent – give precise urls of the proofs please.

  61. DirkH: do you see conspiracy everywhere? And that WMO, NOAA are conspiring with Munich Re to fool the world? As you so eloquently say, “Oh puulease”

  62. He won’t be there mainly because no pro AGW scientist will be prepared to go into bat for him quoting facts. His reason for not showing up will be along the lines that he doesn’t have to listen to the same old “d—–r” lies or that the debate has moved on.

  63. History tells us that the world was a safer, kinder, steady weather kinda place. Disasters are just a thing of the present.

    “So have there been more natural disasters in recent years? In a word, NO.
    What we have, rather, is an increase in our ability to detect hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes.”

    I grow tired of the scarmongering. These people are a bunch of scam artists and they think we aren’t looking. AGW is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American people and I’m not American, or oil/coal funded, or right-wing. I live in a malaria infested tropical country which lies at sea-level. I only want to stand for the facts and not lies. So there. ;O)

  64. @Buzz Belleville: How do you distinguish between more frequent “extreme” weather events and improved reporting and record keeping?

    Can you give us some specific references to that conclusion from the database keepers you mentioned?

  65. Senator Wirth is a product of the Boulder culture. The same culture you find at NCAR and CU-Boulder. Science at these institutions is prejudiced because the political and social climate of the community (where the scientists live) is so heavily influenced by the left. If you live in an area where all you hear is “global warming”, it tends to drive your belief system.

  66. As much as I’d like to see it, I’ll eat my hat (a baseball cap that say “Key West” on it, if this guy takes the challenge. They never do because they’re smart enough to understand they’d get slaughtered. There’s simply no upside.

  67. Bravo, Mr. Watts. I’d wish you luck at ICCC6 but I know you don’t need it and I know Mr. Wirthless won’t dare to participate in an intelligent debate anyway.

    You might want to check the windows the night before though.

  68. I expect, as James Cameron did a few months ago, former-Senator Wirth will be a no-show, all the while continuing his blustery tirade as though he came, saw, and conquered.

  69. The warmists are panicking because they are not able to sell their fraud. The so called wild weather has been addressed by NASA here:

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/24jun_wildweather/

    However the warmists will not accept this because they have developed into some cult like pseudo religious belief system that they must enforce at all costs. They rely strictly on their computer models that are generated using erroneous, cherry picked and falsified data. Scientific observations and real science do not matter to them. I personally will not be brow beat into buying into any global warming theories until I see hard science on the matter.

  70. Wirth must not be so solid in his beliefs if he has to resort to these sordid tactics. But then Anthony gets to post them for all the world to see–from peons like me all the way to justices residing on the Supreme Court (my projection).

    Blathering idiots like Wirth just don’t get it–maybe when he represented Colorado (I was an unfortunate resident of that state at the time he arranged Hansen’s stagecrafted show to the senate) he could make a statement to the press and they’d rush to print it on their front page, but those days of misinformation are long gone. The Internet now exposes any like him to everybody willing to look, and that number is obviously growing.

    So I say “Bring it on, Mr. Wirth”. Come with your false science, hyperbole, and gall–we will continue spreading the word and someday you’ll realize how similar you are to Al Gore–a complete and abject failure. Funny how the climsci people eventually fall by the wayside.

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-16441

  71. “undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers”

    Reminds me of my college English lit class where I did a paper on Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”, and I can remember the televison movie some years ago which it inspired. Both were based of course on the witch hunts in 1692 Salem, Massachusetts. In the movie, the innocent victims were mostly hung by the neck although one was crushed to death under the weight of rocks. In my paper, I mentioned some parallels between the Salem witch hunts and the McCarthyist campaign in the early 1950s.

    As I join the others who have commented here on this call for a new wave of McCarthyism, I can only shake my head in disgust to see it happen — again. Every time I think that we’re enlightened enough in this day and age to put things like this behind us and tolerate dissent and diversity of opinion, closed-minded people like Wirth keep proving me wrong.

    In late 17th century Salem, the witch hunts were motivated by excessive and fanatical enforcement of Christian religion. In the early 1950s, it was the religion (if you want to call it that) and paranoia of anti-communism. Today, it is the pseudo-religious orthodoxy of man-made climate change.

    Like I said, I keep hoping we will learn to put this kind of thinking and behavior behind us someday — someday. But I guess I better not hold my breath waiting for it to happen. I guess I’ll just have to keep exhaling CO2 instead.

  72. sceptical says:
    Seems your anger has gotten the better of you again Mr. Watts. Past weather events do not mean the climate is unchanging. To claim so is silly.
    ————–
    Which is exactly why he didn’t claim any such thing. He was, very clearly, showing that “extreme weather events” were happening at the very CO2 level which Hansen claimed to be “safe” and are not at all unique, or indeed exceptional, at the present level.

  73. W Abbott says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:27 am

    ———————————————-

    From Wikipedia.

    The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehu'dim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[2][3][4] Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia.

    Ethnic group

    “Ethnicity” redirects here. For the 2003 kayla listening album, see Ethnicity (Yanni album).
    “Peoples” redirects here. For the defunct chain of department stores, see Peoples (store).
    An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] Another definition is “…a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith”.[4]
    Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group’s distinctiveness. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are called ethnogenesis.

    Therefore, I agree that the words “race” and “ethnicity” are close enough so as to be interchangeable for this purpose.

  74. fredb says:
    June 25, 2011 at 6:10 am

    DirkH: do you see conspiracy everywhere? And that WMO, NOAA are conspiring with Munich Re to fool the world? As you so eloquently say, “Oh puulease”

    It tends to be a conspiracy (theTeam conspires with one another, as the Climategate emails indicated, to further their cause) and it also tends to be a pack of lies.

    Question: Have you read Al Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth? What do you think of the falsehoods or the reliance on cult religion it contains? (Oh, you didn’t know it advocates cult religion with respect to Global Warming??)

    So, if you haven’t read it, please do and come back with an answer or two.

  75. Since most wildfires are set by arsonists, I don’t understand how anyone can claim “increased frequency of wildfires” can be caused by Global Warming. The recent fire in Arizona was caused by a problem with a motorhome on the side of the road. Blaming this on atmospheric CO2 makes no sense, but the AGW enthusiasts keep getting a free ride from the press.

  76. Anthony,
    I’m sorry, but data and facts just don’t matter to these people. They are hell-bent on implementing their totalitarian agenda, and no amount of contradictory evidence will sway their opinions.

    Good job refuting the Wirth-less claims, though.

  77. One of the best posts ever at WUWT was the Thermostat Hypothesis that said thunderstorms keep the tropics at a constant temperature.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

    If this is true, then global warming (say due to an active sun), will cause the poles to warm while the tropics maintain a constant temperature. The smaller temperature gradient will have less turbulence and will create fewer frontal storm systems in the temperate zones and there will be less severe weather.

    The converse, a global cooling from a passive sun, will cool the poles, increase the gradient and create more frontal storms and severe weather. Wirth is not just a political hack making stuff up, he is exactly the opposite of the truth. The floods are from a massive snow pack this year.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/massive-drifts-and-late-melting-snowpack/

    Oh wait, just in. Simple laboratory experiments show that an electrically heated tube of dry air will radiate more IR as the CO2 increases from 0 to 1000ppm. Therefore adding CO2 to the air will cause the atmosphere to radiate more and cool. Warming or cooling, its all because of a trace amount of CO2, the essential plant food.

  78. Alicia Frost says @ June 25, 2011 at 1:53 am “…maybe an ice age”

    Based on what evidence?

    In response to news inquiries and stories, Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement:

    “We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing.”

    http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

  79. These AGW’s guys may not realize that there a possibility of them being dragged into the courts for having purposely and klnowingly pushed a lie and sacm that may cost peoples lives and money.

  80. The whole stagecraft thing seems to make him so proud.
    As a control they should get the senate to sit in the coldest day of the year with the heat off and the windows open to see which presents to most difficulties.

  81. If we look back through history we will notice some repetition of tyrannical development within various forms of leadership. Their quest for total power over all things will become the lowest common denominator to attain total rule. Why will they win? They own the rule making creationist bureaucratic pawns. The public is all about redistribution of your wealth. Why do illegal aliens allowed to continue to pour across our boarders? Simple, they gain voters through believers in the amnesty proclamations. They are literally purchasing the votes one small sector at a time. Those of us who have wealth of any amount are demonized. And today those who want your wealth see CO2 hysteria and AGW as an avenue to that wealth. They are blinded in greed.

    A logical thinker as Anthony exhibits to be can not change the thinking flaws found in our population who see the world in a total lie. They are unable to construct a thought that does not include a “what’s in it for me” construct. They will breed themselves into dominance.

  82. http://www.unfoundation.org/about-unf/our-leadership/timothy-e-wirth.html

    Mr. Wirth,

    Since I am what you deride as a denier, I demand to know exactly what you mean when you state in your Frontline interview:

    “Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop”

    What possible remedy can you be suggesting that isn’t a direct physical threat to me and my friends and family? Do you mean I should be placed in forced re-education? Shackled? Thrown in jail, or something more severe?

    In order to provide assurances to the contrary to those who conclude that you are promoting a pogrom, I recommend you either publically retract it with a full, unqualified apology, or show up at the Sixth International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011 at the Mariott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road NW, and deliver an explanation for your ugly, threatening proclamation.

  83. “Of course, in the US, drought was worse in 1934 when CO2 was at something around 290 ppm.”

    Um – I would check that statement regarding CO2 levels in 1934 with the recorded values published by Ernst-Georg Beck:

    http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

    Mind you, Beck does not distract from the points you are trying to make as long as one bothers to think about it…

  84. He reminds me of #2…ah err…well.
    If you get a chance to confront him directly, don’t forget the tissue.

  85. Alicia Frost says:
    June 25, 2011 at 1:53 am

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news Mr Watts but this site and real climate are coming close to being irrelevant as all things seems to be pointing to no problem or maybe an ice age.

    What, when even as we speak Chairman Gore and a no lesser than comrade Wirth himself have called upon their Workers to Unite and wage against us Oppressors of Social Justice their most recent Revolution – perhaps not so strangely in conjunction with the formulaic Greecian 44 uprisings and in union with the “this is what democracy looks like” outbreaks?

    No, Alicia, instead of wallowing around in the usual self-fulfilling woe of a “projected” irrelevancy or final demise – such as they always seem to want – “rise up again” yourself, now using your empowerment and education, and of course your justly attained economic equality, to stop them! After all, even as their Zombie brothers and sisters have always said, “Rejoice, the future always happens! We see brains all around!…useful brains, curative brains, tasty brains.”

  86. He would be wise not to debate imo. When politicians get into a debates with experts in a field, they tend to get flustered, confused and let their mouths run away with them. I seem to recall one such ocasion when the politican claimed that the centre of the earth was millions of degrees and that he had personally invented the interweb

    EO

  87. I’m going to write to Senator Wirth with a copy to both of my senators Brown and Kerry telling Wirth that I’m appalled by his suggestion. I will tell him directly that I dare him to come after me and this ‘free ride’ I’m getting while government spends billions each year to shove this hoax down our throats.

  88. It doesn’t make sense that Hansen would call for a limit of 350 ppm CO2 back in 1987 when he was also claiming the effects of AGW were already underway. As a scientist he would have to call for a much lower level so that the effects would slowly go away.

  89. tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 3:32 am

    “undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers”

    Perhaps Mr Wirth is planning to set up a ‘Committee for Anti Climatic Activities’ henceforth to be known as CACA.====
    ;-) ;-)
    sort of makes what lord M said seem rather apt.
    when we know how tiny the proportion of truth actiually getting any media at all really is,
    any that manages to get a tiny space is also immediately ridiculed by someones pet “expert” no one ever heard of before(or after)
    his claims of the sceptics having too much say?
    is preposterous.
    what he means is ANY say at all-is not on.
    to me that smacks of” Isms and ists,”
    there is NO View allowed but theirs…

  90. An old has-been and not worth bothering with. Go after the fools who gave him his podium to spout his nonsense.

  91. Can it also be arranged that Al Gore receive a standing offer to debate Lord Monckton at the conference?

  92. fredb says:
    June 25, 2011 at 6:10 am

    DirkH: do you see conspiracy everywhere? And that WMO, NOAA are conspiring with Munich Re to fool the world? As you so eloquently say, “Oh puulease”

    Distinct groups don’t have to conspire if their self-interests align.

    As DirkH said, Munich Re has a vested interest in painting disaster scenarios from CAGW so that they can raise their premiums and invest the proceeds, whether or not disasters actually materialize. WMO and NOAA stand to gain funding if the problem is viewed as “serious” by world governments.

    WRT Munich Re’s inconsistencies, you can review Pielke Jr.’s extensive writings.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7HPND_en&q=munich+re+pielke+site%3Arogerpielkejr.blogspot.com&btnG=Search&oq=munich+re+pielke+site%3Arogerpielkejr.blogspot.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=undefined&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=5750l9343l0l3l3l0l0l0l0l171l327l1.2l3

  93. I seriously doubt Mr. Wirth has the scientific knowledge to present a climate change talk. He would have to present his social plan to go after us. And that would be completely outside the scientific focus of the convention I would think.

  94. I’m sure former Senator Wirth will have to attend to urgent business away from DC June 30 through July 1. ;->

  95. Wirth made a great statement which shows the real problem with his whole religion:

    ““We also have to do a better job of having the scientific community being able to explain what they’re doing and how they’re doing it and why they’re doing it in very clear terms that are understandable to 300 million Americans.”

    Yeah, if they had some FACTS for the people, they wouldn’t have to worry so much about silencing the realists! But arguing “on the merits” is a concept that liberals just don’t seem to understand.

  96. Wirth is just another one of those greenshirts who thought they had the game won, thought they had managed to herd us into their reeducation camps.

    Fortunately, just as they were about to snap the latch shut, their pants fell down and we managed to fight our way back out.

    That isn’t to say they aren’t still trying. But at least their case and their effort look a lot more dubious now.

  97. When alarmists point to increasingly weird US weather, the simplest and best response is that the temperature trend in the US for the past 15 years has been clearly down–not just flattish or slightly warming, like global temperatures.

    (Can someone post a link to a chart showing this? I’ve seen them here in the past.)

  98. JohnD says @ June 25, 2011 at 7:18 am “What possible remedy can you be suggesting that isn’t a direct physical threat to me and my friends and family? Do you mean I should be placed in forced re-education? Shackled? Thrown in jail, or something more severe? ”

    Oh stop already with the “we’re so oppressed” nonsense. He is clearly saying refute, assert the actual science of climate science. It is like how the sarcastic writing to make a point has been turned into the “they want to tattoo us” insanity that caught purchase here…. Gosh.

  99. sceptical says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:37 am

    Seems your anger has gotten the better of you again Mr. Watts. Past weather events do not mean the climate is unchanging. To claim so is silly.

    So your own ‘logic’ is such that, “If I just repeat this Mantra enough, the otherwise non-existent ‘climate’ I am talking about thereby comes into existence”? Because ~”anything still possibly imaginable despite evidence is almost certainly existent” – therefore, such as your own “CO2=CAGW” = “climate change” word definition which also, according to your alleged reality-dictating word use, denies the possibility of any other “climate change” having ever occurred?

    sceptical, snap out of it! That’s the problem with the Monkey tribe: “They know it is true because they always say it is true.” – Mogli, Jungle Book Movie

    Attn., sceptical, avoid being an evolutionary throw-back or dead ender! Turn your thus far pro-forma scepticism back upon your own mind to see, 1] if you can escape your world of unhinged word-games and, 2] if you really do like it as much as you seem to.

    Otherwise I fear you will try to mate with a GCM Warming Model!

  100. Orkneygal has a good points as one who is involved with a Charity/Orphanage in Haiti-the problem of Klepotcratic, corrupt, governance, is world wide among poor people. Being of mixed heritage myself, I see no way other than this-Free unfettered development of the third world.
    But the racists in the Green movement do not want that for they fear healthy, happy and prosperous dark skinned people. No kidding.
    Good Post Anthony, nice gauntlet throw..

  101. Anthony, you disappoint me by responding in this way.

    The onus is on the AGW alarmists to prove their case. The most useful thing you can do is to continue to expose their foibles and fallacies.

    It seems to me counter productive to issue a challenge to someone like Wirth who is. after all. a has-been.

  102. Wirth comes across as an insurance salesman.

    Well, Barbara, that’s again, back to the major question we’ve been talking about. First, you and I know that while you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires – and we’re seeing exactly that sort of thing in the United States today with increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas, the kind of dramatic climate impact that we have seen in the United States already…

    “Of course sir, we can never be sure if an asteroid will hit your home, we simply can’t predict these things. But the science is in and the overall trend is for more and more near earth objects to enter the atmosphere. In the early fall and mid-winter alone there are two meteor showers that have been increasing in size and intensity as the years progress. We’re seeing exactly this trend right now, more and more videos of bright meteors in the sky, as well as smoke from their remnants. Wouldn’t you want to throw some money at protection from these things, so that you might sleep at night?”

    ^^^ Exactly the same BS as Wirthless said, I just changed the subject. The funny thing is, I’m not wrong either, but I am being just as vacuous. It’s true, the two major annual meteor showers have been fairly active recently, and that was predicted. It’s also true that we have been seeing all sorts of meteor in the sky images and videos on the internet lately when for decades the only video of such a thing was the 1972 pikes peak streaker. But again, the reason for this is obvious, everyone has a cell phone with a camera now, so we’re going to be able to see it all.

  103. PearlandAggie says:
    June 25, 2011 at 6:53 am
    Anthony,
    I’m sorry, but data and facts just don’t matter to these people. They are hell-bent on implementing their totalitarian agenda, and no amount of contradictory evidence will sway their opinions.

    Agreed – this is the fundamental problem for sceptics. For the alarmists, science is not what this is about. Many scientists happily (unquestioningly?) accept the “consensus”, so in alarmist eyes there is absolutely no point getting involved in arguments over the science of CAGW.

    This is now a political, not scientific, debate. It’s my belief that until sceptics recognise this we will simply go round in circles. We all know that CAGW science is dodgy in the extreme, but we will not win the battle unless we engage in CAGW politics. This means placing less importance on scientific debate, and concentrating more on gaining power and influence.

    I would suggest that a good starting point would be to give much more publicity to the staggering cost of reducing CO2 emissions. For example, in the UK, the public should know that, according to the U.K. government’s own figures, it will cost at least £2 billion a year until 2022, to meet the costs of the Climate Change Act, and that the resultant drop in global temperatures will be negligible. Apparently we are doing this to lead by example. (No, seriously! I have the letter from DECC in front of me.)

    Let’s ease off the scientific debates and escalate the political ones.

  104. Geez I was just being super sarcastic. All I was saying is that there is no future in AGW, The world ain’t warming, ice ain’t melting etc, people are waking up in a major way to the scam. That’s what I meant, “climate change” will therefore not be a very interesting subject to both sides of the argument in the near future. Just predicting LOL

  105. Steve from Rockwood says:
    June 25, 2011 at 7:31 am

    It doesn’t make sense that Hansen would call for a limit of 350 ppm CO2 back in 1987 when he was also claiming the effects of AGW were already underway. As a scientist he would have to call for a much lower level so that the effects would slowly go away.

    However, he also said in that interview with “10 -10 go boom” Bill McKibben that if we went back to CO2 = 285 ppm, we’d induce a climate likely worse than another LIA. Booom! “He blows up good, yeah, real good.”

    Hansen’s “crimes against nature” and the “destruction of Creation” [not so] strangely refer solely to the nature and results of his own “thinking’. Woe is him, he’s a goner.

  106. And to think that without the Donna Rice Monkey Business, this guy had a realistic shot at being President.

    If he shows up (which I doubt he will), could you ask him how Donna’s doing, Anthony?

  107. ….

    Let’s just say Wirth was dishonoring the victims and survivors of the Holocaust by using this term as he did.

  108. Wirth seems typical of the political camp of the IPCC-centric clique of sympathizers.

    Independent thinkers need to realize that Wirth and those like him are making physical threats against anyone who does not accept their views.

    John

  109. AGW promoters are the equivalent of WWF wrestlers.
    They make big speeches and blustering threats on camera.
    But the only way the can win is in a rigged per-arranged match.
    It would be interesting to see Mr. Wirth have to deal with actual tough questions, instead of being able to make histrionic immature claims and ominous threats in yet another staged event.

  110. Tim Wirth now heads the United Nations Foundation. From their website:

    “Timothy Wirth is the President of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. Both organizations were founded in 1998 through a major financial commitment from Ted Turner to support and strengthen the work of the United Nations.”

    “Wirth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986 where he focused on environmental issues, particularly global climate change and population stabilization. In 1988, he organized the historic Hansen hearings on climate change. With his close friend, the late Senator John Heinz (R-PA), he authored “Project 88”, outlining the groundbreaking “Cap and Trade” idea which became law in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. He authored the far-reaching Colorado Wilderness Bill which became law in 1993, and with Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) as a co-sponsor, he authored major legislation focused on population stabilization. ”

    Dang. It’s like turning over a rock.

  111. fredb says:
    June 25, 2011 at 6:10 am
    “DirkH: do you see conspiracy everywhere? And that WMO, NOAA are conspiring with Munich Re to fool the world? As you so eloquently say, “Oh puulease””

    I specifically mentioned the insurance industry. And it is not a conspiracy, as it is not hidden from plain view. Two authors of the next IPCC report are employees of Munich Re.

    http://www.munichre.ru/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-06-24_company_news.aspx

    Go ahead and show me that Munich Re has not a vested interest in climate alarmism. I am eager to see your line of argument.

    I leave it to others to deconstruct the motivation of WMO and NOAA.

  112. The funny thing about the link between global warming and all these floods and droughts is that they don’t even need any actual warming to occur to make it all happen. Last month’s satellite global temperature anomaly was .13–barely straying away from average. It has been close to average for the last six months. They no longer need any facts whatsoever to make these absurd claims.

  113. There are two points to note about forest fires in the United States and elsewhere.
    1) Arson
    2) Human carelessness (campfires, cigarettes, etc.,)

    Wildland arson: a research assessment 2010
    “Wildland arson makes up the majority of fire starts in some parts of the United States and is the second leading cause of fires on Eastern United States Federal forests.”

    Campfires – Current Rules and Restrictions 2010
    “Abandoned campfires continue to occur in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Almost daily, firefighters are putting out abandoned and escaped campfires across the forest. “

    Israels worst fire was caused by an environmentalist who decide to burn her toilet paper for the sake of the environment. Greenpeace initially blamed it on global warming climate change.

  114. VERY well done Anthony! … only wish he would take you up on it. I am very confident he won’t. You see, Progressive/Marxists like to hide behind threats and banter, they will only show themselves as last resort. Rest assured, I am most certain that Mr. Wirth is a complete and utter coward and will hide in his mom’s basement.

  115. Mr. Wirth will not show up, but it would be nice to see a real public debate on these issues between two evenly matched experts in the field of climate studies…PhD to PhD. Pitting political leaders against professionally trained or self-taught scientists really serves nothing productive. Also such a debate should be on neutral turf. I have connections to the television business and will gladly get such an appropriately balanced debate television coverage should some group care to organize it.

  116. Formidable. Anthony, You will be a formidable opponent if ex Senator Wirth takes you up on his claim. But he won’t.

    Excellent comparison. I had wondered with a friend last night if the apparent plethora of below average good weather represented something extraordinary or whether it was due to 24 hr news and to the minute social media coverage. I think its the latter While the bad weather is not average it is clearly normal.

  117. Roger Knights says @ June 25, 2011 at 8:01 am “When alarmists point to increasingly weird US weather, the simplest and best response is that the temperature trend in the US for the past 15 years has been clearly down–not just flattish or slightly warming, like global temperatures.”

    Except that is is a bogus statement Roger; Anthony posted an article earlier today that shows how weather and climate impacts cross large geographic areas, so unless you can prove the the US is totally independent from the rest of th world then the rest of the world matters. and here is what is happening in the rest of the world;

    “If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.

    Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

    “The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.

    “Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

  118. I hope that Wirth shows up. If he shows up then maybe the media will cover the event. That would be a good test for the media. The media would find itself upholding Mickey Mouse against Einstein in a debate on gravity. The media would find itself upholding the slur “Denier” as it upheld the slur “parasite” in Germany in 1938. There remain many among us who could benefit from seeing the extent to which the media will lie to the public to support their extreme Left position.

  119. Years ago there was an isomer of an unsaturated fatty acid identified in vegetable oils to have a link to a health issue. The FDA wanted to set some limit for the concentration of this fatty acid in commercial oils. They called a Canadian lipid chemist who has studied rapeseed oil for years and asked him what a safe “level” could be. He gave a specific number to them. Why that number? He gave a number that he knew rapeseed oil never exceeded. So, his response was totally a self-interest, biased, prejudiced, and dishonest answer.

    It was disheartening to hear about this, but it did explain why we had so much trouble getting papers published when he was one of the critiquing squad.

    Bias and dishonesty can be found everywhere; we just have to keep fighting—integrity will win, eventually.

  120. Reason will not win these people over. They’re True Believers, and like most idealogues they do not suffer criticism easily. Wirth is an old eco-activist. He’s well heeled, connected, and has been on a crusade for decades. If he and his ilk have thier way they’d round up all “deniers” and throw them in jail. It is quite ironic that they constantly use the language of fascists in thier public dialogue. And occaisonally they let slip thier real feelings (tatoos and camps for those who do not toe the line).

  121. Good job Anthony, I am way past the point of anger from being mocked and called names for what I believe in, “lack of proof of man-made global warming” and can explain the lack there of through science and logic.

  122. If indeed Mr Wirth does attend, you should consider turning the AC up really high as a sort of counter-staging :)

  123. Orkneygirl missed out, in that long list, “shooting kittens”. Shame on her or him.

    The fact that Freud defined denialism, and he died in 1939, will be equally lost on some regulars…

    All the best – John

  124. Now I see that Ted Turner is the founder and chairman of the UN Foundation. Mr Mirth Wirth is its head.

    Ted Turner has urged world leaders to institute a global one-child policy to save the Earth’s environment. Ted Turner has only 5 children.

    Ted Turner’s UN Foundation would like people to reduce their carbon emissions. Ted Turner flies around in his private jet. He wants us to live with less while he owns two million acres of land.

    Read more abot the “The Thoughts of Chairman Ted”.

  125. @ Moderate Republican
    “He is clearly saying refute, assert the actual science of climate science.”

    Then he will jump at the chance on offer to do exactly that …. right?

  126. In this day and age, having a politician promote your “cause”…
    …is like the kiss of death

    What happened, did save the whales turn him down?

  127. There have been a couple interesting articles lately which describe some of the root reasons for our current flooding and forest fires. This one describes the flooding of the Missouri:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html

    And this one describes the fire in AZ and NM:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whos-to-blame-for-the-southwests-wildfires/

    It appears CO2 had nothing to do with it. In fact these articles rather convincingly implicate environmentalists.

  128. @Buzz Bellevelle is a law professor at a tiny remote coal town 4th tier school who teaches sustainability law, so he’s facing not just the green bubble but the law school bubble too! Ouch. To his credit, he has top student rankings, such as “cool dude” and “tough, fair and hot.” on RateMyProfessor.

    A review claims: “Students at Appalachian spend nearly $48,000 a year for a 65 percent chance of employment within nine months of graduation. Many students will earn a salary that, even before taxes, would not sufficiently cover one year of attending law school. For even small-town lovers and mountaineers, the numbers alone should make students without substantial scholarship money wary about choosing Appalachian School of Law.”

    Buzz, your lack of research science background excuses you a bit for not readily spotting the often jaw dropping defiance of climatology from the basic tenets of good science. Your post was so silly that I didn’t just ignore it but got curious about why you would willfully misstate weather trends. Dude, you’ve got a good gig going, beard and hiking trails included, so why are you acting like a troll on a skeptic’s blog? Your posts here, now that I’ve looked, typically drop a bomb that results in dozens of confused replies and a flame or two, but you don’t defend your original claim.

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

    P.S. My last girlfriend of 17 years duration has her Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry and is now Google NYC’s senior AdWords attorney, having gone the patent law route back in the day, so I appreciate lawyers just fine, but also appreciate how divorced their outlooks can become from the fair rigor of hard science. She found my growing skepticism amusing, and enjoyed Crichton’s “State of Fear,” novel about AGW, but she wasn’t drawn into the real world case, since she hadn’t been hired to take one side or the other, I suspect, unlike it sounds like you have.

  129. Theo Goodwin says:
    June 25, 2011 at 9:14 am
    I hope that Wirth shows up. If he shows up then maybe the media will cover the event. That would be a good test for the media. The media would find itself upholding Mickey Mouse against Einstein in a debate on gravity. The media would find itself upholding the slur “Denier” as it upheld the slur “parasite” in Germany in 1938. There remain many among us who could benefit from seeing the extent to which the media will lie to the public to support their extreme Left position.
    ———-
    Your analogy to Mickey Mouse and Einstein is humorous but highlights my point that to really move this debate forward, it needs to be among equals, on neutral turf, as otherwise it only becomes circus side-show. The deck must not be stacked either way, by background or location. Mr. Wirth was foolish to say what he did, which is just one more indication that a debate of any sort between he and Anthony would just be a circus side show, if the goal is to move the discussion foward in a positive way as Judith Curry seems to be attempting.

  130. Extraordinarily well done, Mr. Watts. You give me hope. But I still think we should keep our powder dry by getting good at CCS.

  131. Just how brain dead is this gasbag? Even the stalwarts of the “consensus climate” community are running away from trying to blame the La Nina based weather patterns of this year on AGW. The massive fires in the Southwestern US owe their size not so much to the hot dry weather, as to decades in which proper forest management techniques have been rendered out of bounds by environmentalism driven by sentimentality rather than reason.
    It would be nice to think that Sen. Wirthless, or more accurately Witless, would take up your challenge and show up to show everyone the error of their ways, but we have ample history of these CAGW dolts eagerly throwing down the gauntlet to the skeptical community then heading for the high cotton as soon as someone picks it up. Not that long ago it was James Cameron who wanted to shoot it out in the street with “deniers”. He even agreed to appear at a public debate on the climate but then immediately began adding conditions, only to cancel after his “denier” opponents had conceded to all of them so that the deck was completely stacked in his favor. Of course, we also have Algore, who not only will not debate, he won’t even allow anyone to ask him questions unless he can be assured that they will be the ultimate softballs.
    Then you have the consensus blogosphere where you have an equal probability of being struck by lightening or winning a Powerball jackpot as you have of getting a tough question or critique through moderation.
    I do respect the fact that you have chosen to respond with reasoned argument instead of angry vitriol to this foolishness, but I have lost all patience with these people. Ms. Jackson and the EPA are on the verge of setting in motion plans that will do almost incalculable damage to the economy and it is well past time that we quit treating these hypocrites as though they still deserved any kind of respect. The problem is of course that if anyone from the skeptical community ever acted toward them in a manner even approaching how they routinely behave toward us it would be treated as the second coming of Jack the Ripper by their comrades in the MSM.
    Perhaps the only hope is that as their story has unraveled their response has become so over the top that it reeks with the stench of desperation so badly that even those who never thought to question the mythology of consensus have begun to smell it. Also as the EPA comes closer to actually enforcing their plans people are being forced to confront the reality of what all that nice warm and cuddly blather about our green and sustainable low carbon footprint future will really look like when it descends upon us. A world where energy and transportation are not only much more expensive but much less reliably available, where as a consequence almost everything else will be even more inflated, where, in the meanwhile, the high priests and priestesses of the Green Goddess will continue to flit from one garden spot conference to the next plotting ever more onerous regulations for the rest of us, while carefully exempting themselves from any of those bothersome burdens.
    I’d like to believe that as reality rears its ugly head enough people will have maintained the capacity to be, not just annoyed, but outraged. However, judging by what has been transpiring here and in the UK, we may have past the one real tipping point in this entire climate fiasco. The point where the kudzu like growth of our bureaucratic dictatorships has passed beyond any possibility of a revolt of the electorate to reverse or even halt their spreading tendrils and tentacles from strangling the life out of our already shaky economies. I pray with all my heart and soul that I am entirely wrong about this, but unless the elections of 2012 turn into the biggest overturning upheaval in all of our history, the shear bureaucratic inertia of what is already in place will drag us into a future where we will look back on our present dismal economic stats with nostalgic longing. I see nothing in the present political situation which would suggest such an upheaval is even a slight possibility.

    I spit out the above last night when I was in the frame of mind that Anthony described as his first reaction to this and after rereading it I hesitated to post it. However I recognize that many here, probably the majority, still cling to the notion that we can wait for the truth of good science to derail the all of this BS. I would suggest we don’t have time for that. Government programs once implemented are nearly impossible to eliminate and unless the incoming electoral class of 2013 is composed of a veto proof majority of people committed to the immediate reversal of the futile efforts at carbon demonization it will probably be too late to stop it before at least a decade has past. I seriously doubt that such a thing is achievable, but our descendants and our posterity deserve our best shot at it even if we go down like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.

  132. Dr. Dave says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:03 am
    There have been a couple interesting articles lately which describe some of the root reasons for our current flooding and forest fires. This one describes the flooding of the Missouri:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html

    And this one describes the fire in AZ and NM:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whos-to-blame-for-the-southwests-wildfires/

    It appears CO2 had nothing to do with it. In fact these articles rather convincingly implicate environmentalists.
    ——–

    CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast. Those who don’t understand why, might want to study up a bit on the nature of nocondensing versus condensing GH gases. The real issue is not that CO2 affects our weather constantly, but rather how could the 40% greater amount of this GH gas we have now over preindustrial levels be affecting our weather patterns?

    CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas, but the key issue is how sensitive is the climate to the 40% increase in the gas we’ve seen over a few hundred years?

  133. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am

    CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast. Those who don’t understand why, might want to study up a bit on the nature of nocondensing versus condensing GH gases.

    There is never anything less than an overwhelming majority of uncondensed condensing GHG in the atmosphere compared to co2. It’s easier to call it water vapour by the way. It forms part of the estimated average 12.9 gigatons of h20 in the atmosphere, which has sufficient variation in quantity and latitudial location weighting to turn the alleged extra co2 effect into noise on the graph.

    The real issue is not that CO2 affects our weather constantly, but rather how could the 40% greater amount of this GH gas we have now over preindustrial levels be affecting our weather patterns?

    When you consider how easily the alleged effect of the increase is obviously negated by natural variation (see last ten years surface temp) I confidently state “Not a lot”.

    CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas

    In Gatesland maybe, in reality, not so much

  134. As the sun sets on the Great Global Warming Religion its adherents lash out in all angles. This anger stems from frustration and desperation at their utter failure.

    Future academics will ask themselves how such a trace gas con could have fooled so many people? The answer lies in “follow the money”.

  135. Gates says:

    “CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day.”

    Not really. “Everything” is alarmist exaggeration. Weather is affected by the sun, clouds, etc. And:

    “CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas, but the key issue is how sensitive is the climate to the 40% increase in the gas we’ve seen over a few hundred years?”

    Not really. CO2 is a trace gas, no more and no less. And the ‘key issue’ is: does increased CO2 cause global damage? Because if there is no harm, there is nothing to get alarmed about. And so far, there is zero evidence of any global harm from the rise in CO2. It’s still just a trace gas.

  136. I live in Arizona and while we have had a large number of fires the major ones are all man-made disasters. That is they were set my man either via arson or carelessness. None thus far caused by lightning strikes. It is easy to blame the current bogey man (AGW) but it has nothing to do with it.

  137. Here’s one quick summary of why CO2 is so critical to our weather every day due to it’s non condensing nature:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html

    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.

    If you say, with the exception of plants, that we don’t need it at all, you’ll need to explain what will keep the planet warm when all the water vapor condenses from a rapidly cooling planet.

  138. tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:43 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am

    CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast. Those who don’t understand why, might want to study up a bit on the nature of nocondensing versus condensing GH gases.

    There is never anything less than an overwhelming majority of uncondensed condensing GH in the atmosphere compared to co2
    ———-

    It is a matter balance between the two. Water vapor is more potent, but is squeezed out when temps cool. CO2 can act over a much wider range of temperatures because it is non condensing. Again, this article is a nice summary of the difference:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html

  139. Ron House says:
    June 25, 2011 at 6:05 am

    Buzz Belleville, I have personally downloaded graphics from NOAA that show that just about every bad climate metric you can think of are near historic LOWS about now. I call you. You claimed they are becoming more frequent – give precise urls of the proofs please.
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    Ron,

    Buzz is a lawyer and actually makes his living litigating this nonsense. Lawyers don’t have to “prove” anything…they only need to convince a jury.

  140. Mr. Wirth works right there is DC for Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation shepherding Ted’s more than $1 billion donation to UN causes. It would be easy for him to attend the Conference on Climate Change!

    But it is so much easier to make bogus claims when there is no one around to challenge them.

    The Foundation’s 2009 IRS Form 990 shows they gave away $117 million in grants, and had expenses of around $22.5 million. I guess it isn’t easy giving away Turner’s money, even to some of the corrupt programs run by that corrupt organization.

  141. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
    CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast.
    ———————————————–
    Yesterday’s high where I live in Arizona was 97 and the Low was 60. When that ball of fire went down the temperature dropped 37 degrees. So while “greenhouse” play a role in temperature maintenance along with the oceans take away that fusion powered ball of energy 9 light minutes away and it will get much colder, much faster that the loss of CO2 will ever generate.

  142. Gates,

    So now you’re climbing down from your assertion that “CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day”?

    Sure, it affects the temperature. And that’s a good thing, isn’t it? But that’s not the question. The question is: will CO2 cause global catastrophe? Or even any global harm. The complete lack of evidence says No.

  143. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.

    Typical warmist bait and switch. You invited us to discuss the extra 40%, not the baseline 50%.

    Answer our points first please.

  144. Buzz Belleville says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:21 am
    …..The best databases of weather history — Munich Re, NOAA, WMO — all say that such events are becoming more frequent…………

    Show me the peer reviewed evidence. I have shown you mine here. Also, you must have missed the references that Anthony gave for better observation.

  145. DirkH said: “Go ahead and show me that Munich Re has not a vested interest in climate alarmism. I am eager to see your line of argument.”

    OK, I’ll have a go.

    The insurance industry puts huge amount of effort into understanding risk. They do that in order to be able to offer premiums that are high enough that they can make money, but low enough to be competitive. They cannot afford to kid themsleves because they operate in a reasonably free market. Let’s say an insurance company kidded themselves that 18-year-olds are as safe drivers as 60-year-olds, and therefore offered equal premiums to each group. They would go bust because that premium will either be too cheap for the 18-year-olds and they won’t make enough money to cover the claims or too dear for the 60-year-olds and they won’t attract any customers. So, they have to understand the risks as best they can and price premiums accordingly. So it is with climate. If insurance was a monopoly, they could bump up the premiums and blame global warming, but it is not. Munich Re and each of its competitors needs to understand the real risks of climate change in order to settle on premiums that are high enough to cover claims (and make a profit) but low enough to be competitive. The insurance company that does this best will be the most successful.

    If you really want to know the risks of various outcomes due to climate change, I would say that insurance companinies are among the best people to ask. But ask by looking at their premiums rather than their publicity.

  146. Speaking of fraud. I apologize if this has already been tackled in this forum:
    Nature Magazine.
    “Italian authorities and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels, Belgium, have confirmed that they are prosecuting members of a large network accused of pocketing more than €50 million (US$72 million) in EC grants for fake research projects. In Milan, Italy, the Finance Police last month charged several individuals in relation to the fraud. In Brussels, meanwhile, the EC has terminated four collaborative projects in information technology, and excluded more than 30 grant-winners from participation in around 20 ongoing projects. Investigations are still under way in the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Austria, Sweden, Slovenia and Poland.

    “We don’t have any records of [previous] fraud at such a scale,” says David Boublil, the commission’s spokesman for taxation, customs, anti-fraud and audit. While investigations continue, Italian prosecutors and OLAF will not disclose the names of the suspects, or the research projects with which they were involved.”

    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474265a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110616

  147. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    Here’s one quick summary of why CO2 is so critical to our weather every day due to it’s non condensing nature:
    ———————————————————-
    It has gone from being a climate driver to a weather driver. Interesting. We have been chastised by the likes of you for the better part of two decades not to conflate weather and climate.But you feel free to conflate the two.

  148. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:56 am
    It is a matter balance between the two. Water vapor is more potent, but is squeezed out when temps cool. CO2 can act over a much wider range of temperatures because it is non condensing.

    How much gets “squeezed out”? Does it reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere from “completely overwhelming co2″ to “Very nearly completely overwhelming co2″? Or not that much?

  149. tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:01 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.

    Typical warmist bait and switch. You invited us to discuss the extra 40%, not the baseline 50%.

    Answer our points first please.
    ———

    This makes no sense. The sensitivity of the climate to changes in CO2 levels is THE central question of the AGW debate. Asking AGW skeptics how low it can go before we’d start seeing cooling effects is hardly a “bait and switch”. Skeptics seem to think this trace GH hardly matters at all, so again, how low can we go with it? (ignoring the fact that the food chain would collapse without it)

  150. John B writes:

    “If insurance was a monopoly, they could bump up the premiums and blame global warming, but it is not.”

    You left out the part about the insurance companies being smart enough to detect a wave of hysteria that they can ride to higher prices. No conspiracy, no dirty dealing, just good sense enough to see that there is ample support among the populace for ranking the risk higher than they might have otherwise.

  151. While CO2 is responsible for less than 25% of the greenhouse affect (and I think around 14% but correct me if I’m wrong), the % rise in PPM, not % rise in the gas itself, is the metric you Gates are blind to. You also seem particularly blind to the amount of energy needed to sweep away one pressure front for another.

    Changes in weather is an evergy intensive phenomenon, something meterologists are schooled in as they use this knowledge to predict when the next system will arrive. The mathematical calculations of that change require FAR more energy than what the increase in %ppm CO2 can produce.

    That you insist on the 40% figure reveals your lack of understanding and instead, your use of a fall back talking point.

  152. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.
    ——————————————————-
    Foolish argument. We can’t just ignore the fact that plants need it. Are you suggesting that plant cover doesn’t affect albedo and thus climate and weather. Also, lower it below the partial pressures needed to sustain photosynthesis in phototrophic organisms and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

  153. Talkbloke said: “How much gets “squeezed out”?”

    Answer: Pretty much all of it.

    Without non condensing GHGs like O2 to support the GHE, temperatures would fall, water vapour would condense, temperatures would fall some more, and so on. It’s a feedback. Eventually a new equilibrium witll be reached, but with no CO2 it would be much lower and water vapour would also be much lower.

  154. Anthony, please invite Jeff Masters also. He has been attempting to connecting weather dots with his climate change pen recently. Unsuccessfully, if I may add.

    I suppose with the recent massive kyoto exodus, it is time for desperate measures!

  155. tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:09 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:56 am
    It is a matter balance between the two. Water vapor is more potent, but is squeezed out when temps cool. CO2 can act over a much wider range of temperatures because it is non condensing.

    How much gets “squeezed out”? Does it reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere from “completely overwhelming co2″ to “Very nearly completely overwhelming co2″? Or not that much?
    ———-
    Of course as it gets colder, and more water vapor is condensed out, we pass through the point where their effects are about equal to the point where CO2 is the main GH contributor. Again, read this for a nice summary:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html

  156. I think it would be good if Mr. Wirth[less] were to write, in longhand, 1,000 lines:

    “I must not have the audacity to insinuate that my superiors, such as Mr. Watts, should tolerate such diabolical asininity, designed to give scientific verisimilitude to such an insignificant insect as myself.”

    Preferably he should do this every night before his prayers.

  157. chemman says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:13 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.
    ——————————————————-
    Foolish argument. We can’t just ignore the fact that plants need it. Are you suggesting that plant cover doesn’t affect albedo and thus climate and weather. Also, lower it below the partial pressures needed to sustain photosynthesis in phototrophic organisms and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
    ——–
    Again, why do skeptics hate this question? We are simply trying to establish the range of sensitivity of the climate to CO2 levels. Skeptics seem to think the climate won’t be affected much by the 40% increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries, so I’m simply trying to see how low they think we could go without seeing any climate effects. Why is this so hard?

  158. Gates, your article is behind a paywall. Media reports (th link you gave) are notoriously incorrect and usually reinterpret the original research way beyond its limits.

  159. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:18 am
    Of course as it gets colder, and more water vapor is condensed out, we pass through the point where their effects are about equal …

    What surface temp does that happen at?

    Are we still talking about contemporary weather or are we talking about ice ages again?

    Do not mention the arctic in this thread or you will be snipped for off topic baiting.

  160. niteowl says: June 25, 2011 at 8:32 am
    And to think that without the Donna Rice Monkey Business, this guy had a realistic shot at being President.

    Uhhh…. I think you are thinking of Gary Hart, the senator that Wirth replaced when he declined to run again in 1986. It was the Monkey Business incident that ended Hart’s 1988 presidential campaign. To the best of my knowledge, Wirth never entertained Presidential ambitions.

  161. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
    “CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. ”

    Please explain the daily temperature range in deserts.

    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:27 am
    “Skeptics seem to think the climate won’t be affected much by the 40% increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries”

    Whew, for a moment I thought you had forgotten to put in your favorite Gatesism.

  162. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:27 am.
    Skeptics seem to think the climate won’t be affected much by the 40% increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries,

    Bzzzt. Nearly all that change has been in the last century. Stop trying to claim the secular increase in T since the little ice age for co2. It won’t wash here.

  163. tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:34 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:18 am
    Of course as it gets colder, and more water vapor is condensed out, we pass through the point where their effects are about equal …

    What surface temp does that happen at?

    Are we still talking about contemporary weather or are we talking about ice ages again?

    Do not mention the arctic in this thread or you will be snipped for off topic baiting.
    ———

    Tim Wirth is not a scientist and is not qualified to make a scientific judgement about the effect of rising CO2 levels. But the core issue at hand is whether or not rising CO2 levels could be affecting the weather patterns. Mr. Wirth could be right, but not know the details as to why he is, or he could be wrong, but either way, the only meaningful debate that would not be a circus side show would be between two individuals who could scientifically state their reasoning in detail.

    In regards to the role of CO2 as the master thermostat for the planet, again this summarizes it nicely:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html

    Take away CO2, and we return to the ice-planet earth. It is far more than just a trace GH gas…

  164. Back at the beginning of time the high priests learned that their forte was to preach. Debate was ruled out on day one.

  165. R. Gates,
    That is all very fascinating, but did you really have nothing else to offer on a thread about a former Senator who now makes a good living promoting AGW hysteria making non-sane comments about skeptics.

  166. Pamela Gray, an excellent point. Even if the CO2 ppm rises, the atmosphere is still static. Weather by definition is not, and requires huge heat differentials, i.e, cooling as well as transient heat.

  167. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:53 am (Edit)
    tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:34 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:18 am
    Of course as it gets colder, and more water vapor is condensed out, we pass through the point where their effects are about equal …

    What surface temp does that happen at?

    Are we still talking about contemporary weather or are we talking about ice ages again?

    Do not mention the arctic in this thread or you will be snipped for off topic baiting.

    [snip] irrelevance to my questions

    Take away CO2, and we return to the ice-planet earth. It is far more than just a trace GH gas

    So you’re not going to address my questions or points about your original claim that the increase in the trace gas co2 from 0.03% to 0.039% has affected modern weather patterns.

    OK, bye.

  168. Theo Goodwin says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:10 am

    “You left out the part about the insurance companies being smart enough to detect a wave of hysteria that they can ride to higher prices. No conspiracy, no dirty dealing, just good sense enough to see that there is ample support among the populace for ranking the risk higher than they might have otherwise.”

    And another company would spot the opportunity to offer a lower premium, thus attracting customers while still making money. That’s the free market at its best.

  169. Jimbo says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:38 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
    “CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas, but the key issue is how sensitive is the climate to the 40% increase in the gas we’ve seen over a few hundred years?”

    You could also have asked:
    How sensitive is the climate to future increases of man-made c02? This is the question at stake.
    ——-
    This is all the same core question. How much, up or down, do you have to change CO2, to create an effect on the climate?

    If you can accept the notion that non-condensing GHG’s, with CO2 being the primary one, are actually the earth’s thermostat (as far as the GH effect goes), then the question is really about the sensitivity of that thermostat. It is this question, discussed between two qualified scientists that held differing notions (i.e. Warmist and Skeptic) that would provide for an interesting debate.

  170. Tallbloke says:

    “So you’re not going to address my questions or points about your original claim that the increase in the trace gas co2 from 0.03% to 0.039% has affected modern weather patterns.”

    ———-
    Since I never made that claim it would be hard for me to address. I said CO2 affects all the weather all the time because without it, in addition to us starving, our planet would return to the ice-house earth. I never said the INCREASE would cause anything specific, but simply the mere existence of it must affect our weather, for we are not an ice planet, which we would be without CO2.

  171. Besides “bring it” there’s something else.
    I think this is long over due considering the viral capabilities of today’s electronic age and social networking.
    “revolutions in technology making worldwide reporting a nearly instantaneous event”.

    I don’t think this has ever been attempted. And it should.

    WUWT should provide a global Whistle blower’s Outlet, Protection and Defense Alliance to encourage academia & team insiders to reveal and expose the scoundrels and their shenanigans.

    I suspect many whistle blowers are sitting on the edge of doing something but have no comfortable way of doing so.
    What if WUWT could provide a variety of ways to assist whistle blowers to provide everything they may want to release:
    A secured and confidential central electronic/e-mail destination/collection point.
    Multiple, worldwide localized versions secured by WUWT participants.
    Global locations to hand over hard copy evidence without any electronic back tracking. Also by WUWT participants.
    All backed by the solidarity of the global participants of WUWT backing up and supporting whistle blowers.

    IMO this kind of effort would encourage many to abandon the people and institutions unwirthy of
    their continued participation.

  172. It makes one worry about the sanity of Mr Wirth, calling for some sort of jihad againt rational scientists because the disagree with his AGW religion. It’s bordering on hate speech agaist scientists.

  173. hunter says:
    June 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm
    R. Gates,
    That is all very fascinating, but did you really have nothing else to offer on a thread about a former Senator who now makes a good living promoting AGW hysteria making non-sane comments about skeptics.
    ——-
    I made my point that a debate between he and Anthony would be nothing but a circus side show. Not helpful in really getting at the issues. Wirth was stupid to say what he did, and Anthony was gracious to offer a debate. It would be entertaining and probably painful for fans of Mr. Wirth but would be just a summer day at the circus, with Mr. Wirth as the clown.

  174. John B

    If you really want to know the risks of various outcomes due to climate change, I would say that insurance companies are among the best people to ask.

    Which raises the question, why have they ignored their own scientist’s peer reviewed publications, as pointed out repeatedly by Pielke Jr.? (See my previous comment)

    And another company would spot the opportunity to offer a lower premium, thus attracting customers while still making money. That’s the free market at its best.

    One would hope, although Munich Re has had a highly motivated sales force.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13454160

  175. Pamela Gray says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:12 am
    While CO2 is responsible for less than 25% of the greenhouse affect (and I think around 14% but correct me if I’m wrong), the % rise in PPM, not % rise in the gas itself, is the metric you Gates are blind to. You also seem particularly blind to the amount of energy needed to sweep away one pressure front for another.

    Changes in weather is an evergy intensive phenomenon, something meterologists are schooled in as they use this knowledge to predict when the next system will arrive. The mathematical calculations of that change require FAR more energy than what the increase in %ppm CO2 can produce.

    That you insist on the 40% figure reveals your lack of understanding and instead, your use of a fall back talking point.
    ———
    Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750’s. This basic point is not really in dispute. I “insist” on this figure because it happens to be the truth, and that’s very important to me.

  176. R Gates “painful for fans of Mr. Wirth”
    It would be if any other AGW fool attended.

    That’s why they hide and manipulate.

    That’s why bloggers Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm have long been editing & doctoring posts, blocking comments, blocking rebuttals, allowing weaker comments and effectively cooking up entire debates to make them reflect winning arguments and the phony “robust” of the AGW movement.

  177. Gary Palmgren says:
    June 25, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Oh wait, just in. Simple laboratory experiments show that an electrically heated tube of dry air will radiate more IR as the CO2 increases from 0 to 1000ppm. Therefore adding CO2 to the air will cause the atmosphere to radiate more and cool.

    This is what I have called the “cooling effect” of GHGs. GHGs have both a warming and a cooling effect. Isn’t it strange that we’ve never heard the alarmists discuss the cooling effect.

    BTW, I expect Wirth to be too Tim-id to show up. Big mouths are usually afraid to confront REAL people. They prefer to shout out and then run and hide.

  178. I see that others have stepped in and responded to R. Gates. His rather insipid question of how much CO2 we could do without and not freeze is meaningless. Most of the GHG effect of CO2 is realized at the very low concentrations. The temperature response is logarithmic. With increasing concentration of CO2 you get less temperature response. The real question is not what would happen with less CO2, it is what will happen with more. The answer is not very much. This has been demonstrated in the lab and is why we can estimate a theoretical temperature increase of about 1.2 deg C with a DOUBLING of CO2 concentration over pre-industrial levels. Dr. Roy Spencer estimates it would be something closer to 0.5 deg C in reality. What’s more, this “reality” is about 90 years away so I’m not going to worry about it. My grandparents didn’t worry about airline safety or emerging antimicrobial resistance in 1911 so I’m leaving a little extra CO2 to future generations to enjoy. If we leave them with a more very slightly warmer world and a more vibrant biosphere due to an atmosphere enriched with CO2 they can thank us. Until someone can prove a positive feedback with water vapor that idea will remain within the realm of mythology. You can’t claim what you can’t prove with empirical evidence.

  179. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    I never said the INCREASE would cause anything specific, but simply the mere existence of it must affect our weather, for we are not an ice planet, which we would be without CO2.

    I don’t know whether Earth would be an ice planet without co2. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. It all depends on which assumptions you plug into models.

  180. IMO, Anthony makes a very important, in fact damning, point when he says:

    “So it goes without saying, that if the case Dr. Hansen was to make before the Senate was so strong, why did Senator Wirth need to make use of cheap stage tricks?”

    Now the former Senator wants to:
    …”undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers,”…

    So, when deception doesn’t work, you turn to …. just what are you suggesting ?

  181. So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.

  182. “Sen. Wirth said: “Well, Barbara, that’s again, back to the major question we’ve been talking about. First, you and I know that while you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires – and we’re seeing exactly that sort of thing in the United States today with increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas, the kind of dramatic climate impact that we have seen in the United States already. ”

    What I don’t understand about the “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” argument is that currently the RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly is barely above average:
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    Same with UAH Mid-Troposphere Temperature Anomaly;

    and UAH Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly:

    Undoubtedly the recent drop in the Atmospheric Temperature is due to the recent La Niña event;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/

    however, Former Senator Wirth’s argument appears to be that CO2 has warmed the atmosphere and this warming has caused “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”. Since recent atmospheric temperatures have been around, slightly above or slightly below the 30 year average, then CO2 driven atmospheric warming cannot be the cause of the recent “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” Wirth claims. Wirth is lying about the “increases” and he is lying about the attribution of them.

    Former Senator Wirth, can you please explain how CO2 has caused recent “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” including “increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas” while atmospheric temperatures have been quite close to average?

  183. sceptical says:

    “So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.”

    You set up that strawman and knocked it right down.

    If it weren’t for your projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. The fact is that the alarmist crowd are the ones who wrongly believe the climate never changed prior to the industrial revolution. That’s Mann’s straight hockey stick shaft. True scientific skeptics like Anthony, on the other hand, know that the climate has always changed.

  184. Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make.

  185. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750′s.

    You have (I hope) misunderstood Pamela’s point. Which was that you are avoiding the fact that co2 is a trace gas 40% of very little ain’t a lot. You are also persisting in trying to claim the secular rise in surface T since the Little Ice Age for co2, when you (hopefully) know that the vast majority of the increase in co2 took place after 1900.

  186. Mr. Watts reasoning seems to be since there was a drought in the 1930’s no droughts can ever be do to a changing climate because no matter how the climate changes, the drought in the 30’s will still have existed. Silly reasoning.

  187. R.Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:53 am

    In regards to the role of CO2 as the master thermostat for the planet, again this summarizes it nicely:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html

    Can’t see any explanation for how CO2 works as a thermostat.

    Is this before or after water and carbon dioxide get into a mutually irresistabe clinch in the atmosphere and come down as carbonic acid (rain)?

    Take away CO2, and we return to the ice-planet earth. It is far more than just a trace GH gas..

    ? Without CO2 the Water Cycle would stop? How?

    In the Water Cycle, water having a very high capacity to hold heat, evaporation takes the heat away from the surface of the Earth in water vapour and dumps it high in the colder atmosphere when it condenses out to come down as rain. How does lack of Carbon Dioxide stop that atmosphere wash cycle?

  188. “Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge”

    Why on earth would you think that someone who wants to silence you would want to debate you?

  189. sceptical says:
    June 25, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make.

    Agreed, that would be a very silly thing to say. Which is why he didn’t say it. What he did say is that there is nothing extraordinary or unprecedented about the recent weather events, and provided some historical examples to illustrate that point.

  190. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    “Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750′s. This basic point is not really in dispute. I “insist” on this figure because it happens to be the truth, and that’s very important to me.”

    You “insist” on this figure because you DO understand that the actual increase in ppm is so small that you must continually use the “40%” to be more dramatic. So you are technically correct, as has been acknowledged on this blog before, but you REFUSE to acknowledge that this 40% amounts to squat!!!!

    Definition of Gatesism: referring to a percentage without acknowledging magnitude.

    Example: I had a 40% increase in the number of weeds in my front yard. Not one person can say if this is significant because the actual number of weeds is not referred to. If I had only 5 weeds and now I have 7, it is not significant.

    Now you know.

  191. >> sceptical says:
    June 25, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make. <<

    One again a Warmist misstates an argument in order to shoot it down ,because he can't address the actual argument.

  192. sceptical says:
    “So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.”

    That is one of the most common & disingenuous approaches by the left regardless of the topic of discussion.
    I run across that all the time.
    Instead of quoting and responding to what is said, (in this case something Anthony actually wrote), they provide a substitute version which is almost always some irrational twist having nothing to do with anything really said.

    Here in order for sceptical to be able to debunk Anthony, he had to come up with a twist so asinine that it is something no one has ever said.
    And what brilliance to have then judged his own twist as silly.

    My psychoanalysis reads this approach as low IQ & chronic immaturity with a severe delusion of being clever and insightful.
    It has many forms:

    What you are really saying,
    So you’re actually saying,
    What you meant was,
    Your point is really,
    etc.

    sceptical,
    Notice how I quoted and responded to exactly what you wrote?
    Try it.

  193. Tom in Florida says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
    “Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750′s. This basic point is not really in dispute. I “insist” on this figure because it happens to be the truth, and that’s very important to me.”

    You “insist” on this figure because you DO understand that the actual increase in ppm is so small that you must continually use the “40%” to be more dramatic. So you are technically correct, as has been acknowledged on this blog before, but you REFUSE to acknowledge that this 40% amounts to squat!!!!

    Definition of Gatesism: referring to a percentage without acknowledging magnitude.

    Example: I had a 40% increase in the number of weeds in my front yard. Not one person can say if this is significant because the actual number of weeds is not referred to. If I had only 5 weeds and now I have 7, it is not significant.

    Now you know.
    ———-
    I certainly got the point that skeptics would like keep talking about the absolute change in ppm of CO2 and the fact that it is “just a trace” gas etc. In order to try and minimize the critical role of this gas in our atmosphere and to minimize what a 40% increase might mean. Comparing weeds in your yard and the level of CO2 is not appropriate and you know it. Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.

  194. I am happy that if CO2 does have the minimal effect theorised, that we will be leaving the planet maybe half a degree warmer, but in a much better position to support itself.

    The natural carbon that was buried eons ago is finally being partly restored into the biosphere, thanks to human actions, and will leave the world a much more adundant place in regard to food supplies

  195. CO2 is such a powerful GHG that there are still frozen rock pools in shade in the Arizona desert around midday!

    DaveE.

  196. Myrrh,

    Did you actually read any of that link? Every one of your questions is answered there, so I’m guessing you did not.

  197. Dan in California says:
    June 25, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Since most wildfires are set by arsonists, I don’t understand how anyone can claim “increased frequency of wildfires” can be caused by Global Warming. The recent fire in Arizona was caused by a problem with a motorhome on the side of the road. Blaming this on atmospheric CO2 makes no sense, but the AGW enthusiasts keep getting a free ride from the press.

    Dan your post gave my warped sense of humour a jolt. I suppose that if we were jumping to nonsensical connections like our CAGW ranting bretheren we could connect those dots and “see” a connection to Global warming- Like,maybe, it could be said that the connection results from CAGW types losing the Climate debate, going bonkers and becoming arsonists, but that would be really stretching things just like Mr Wirth.
    Tempting but I’m sure we wont make that mistake!!

  198. No. What is silly reasoning is that this relatively benign weather the world now has and has had since 1940 is dramatically dangerous. Even with the current population density, much of it concentrated in areas prone to weather or seismic catastrophe, weather related deaths are an extraordinarily rare causation of death and injury. When one hypothesizes that changes in weather are caused by extraordinary changes in atmospheric composition, they must first show the composition is extraordinary, and then must demonstrate empirically that the weather is extraordinary, and finally that the extraordinary weather is caused by atmospheric composition. Mr Watts is entirely correct in asserting as a matter of refutation that he observes no extraordinary weather.

  199. The exposure of the crass and self serving political intent of the likes of Wirth is paramount in proving to the worlds population that they have been ‘had’……….
    It’s a shame that it takes the likes of ordinary folk to expose these people – charlatans and conmen for exactly what they are…….an elected politician should be someone to ‘guard’ the individuals rights – not take them away!!!
    and for what it’s worth (no pun intended) – what do we think of the scum that prey on the ‘fears’ of the common person? —- make up your own mind….but just remember that your granny is likely going to be ripped off by these folk and their policies if they are given more free reign…….

  200. It is a funny progression, isn’t it. At first the warmists say no debate is necessary. Then they say the science is settled. Then, when those two things don’t work, they go totalitarian and target people.

    Former Senator Wirth is becoming Pol Pot.

    You know what I think? I think Sen. Wirth must have a lot of money invested in ‘green’ technology firms that require govt. subsidies to be profitable. Just my guess.

  201. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.

    Ah, now this is much more like it. R. Gates understanding is more advanced than I realised. But he needs to know it’s not just a balanced atmosphere, but an atmosphere in balance with the hydrosphere and biosphere. As such he is also certain to appreciate the IPCC admits a low level of scientific understanding when it comes to the effect of solar variation, particularly in the UV part of the spectrum, on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, and the biology of the ocean surface.

    So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output in radiative terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.

    Won’t you R. Gates?

  202. Well, Mr Watts, the witch hunters are back in action with the climate Inquisition about to begin. Obviously you sir have been preaching heresy to the rest of us heretics.

  203. Many eons ago, when the Earth was much younger than to day, a life-form , called plants came into being.
    This life-form used the precious life giving gas in the atmosphere to produce its very structure. This gas was abundant.. at first….. but as the virulent plant life consumed this precious gas, only those species that could adapt to the lowering levels of the life-gas were able to survive. Many billions of species of plant life died, and became buried, and the many billions of tonnes of the life gas were lost for all time.
    Eventually, like all consumer cycles, a subsistence balance of the life gas/plant cycle was established.
    If the life gas dropped much lower, not even the most adapted of the plants could survive, but a small rise in the life -gas allowed plant life to flourish.

    Then along came man, and in his industry, he found ways of releasing the long-buried life-gas for his own warmth and prosperity… and a new age of plant prosperity beckoned. and the plants were happy !!

  204. R. Gates here, here, here, and here, presents this as explaining “the role of CO2 as the master thermostat for the planet”:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html

    (Which is a completely undated article despite being on a site that “publishes monthly” thus should have some dating. Is there something about Climate Science™ that once a pronouncement is made it becomes timeless and unchanging?)

    Willis Eschenbach already tore that paper apart months ago in his post titled “Knobs”.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/29150/

    Among the main points, the Lacis paper (Lacis10) uses GISS Model E which does not match real-world observations. Plus they got the science wrong.

    Roger Pielke Sr, noted climate scientist, listed as a “lukewarmer,” also got in his criticisms:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/

    From him I gather the paper is nothing new. CO2 is an important “first order” climate forcing, if you remove it completely the Earth would cool. However he highlights the logarithmic nature of CO2’s effect, by the numbers presented you can see while going from 360ppm to zero would be a significant change, from 560ppm to 360 would be far much less. CO2 is a really lousy control knob. Further there are other anthropogenic “first order” climate forcings not considered in Lacis10. Pielke Sr. concludes Lacis10 “…is actually an op-ed presented in the guise of a research paper by Science magazine.”

    While CO2 was important for initially establishing a habitable climate on Earth, and its complete removal would be detrimental, now that the climate system is up-and-running with many important regulating mechanisms controlling the temperature in operation, primarily the hydrological cycle, further increases will have minimal impact. Crank it to 11, the Earth won’t notice it getting any louder.
    ===

    Note to moderation team:
    R. Gates’ link leads to a paywall for Lacis10. Willis’ post’s link to the paper went dead. Google found the paper, but for possible legal reasons, as can be seen by the address, I want to check if it’s okay to post the link. Feel free to snip if it’s not:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lacis101015.pdf

  205. As an insurance pro, I would point out that, the worse a company is at modelling historical losses, the more it needs climate change to be a factor. As it happens, if you factor in demographics and economic growth accurately, there is no long term trend in weather-related damage, as a number of commenters have pointed out. But if you don’t, and over the years my friends at Munich, like RMA and many major insurers, have tended to underplay these effects, then it looks like you found a horrible global warming/climate change/climate disruption signal.
    No need for conspiracy theories or wild guesses about motivations, just human nature at work. And if you understand that, you can eat your competitors’ lunch.

  206. I have never believed in AGW. In the future, I will not believe in AGC. I have no desire whatsoever to pay energy taxes to the UN. I would very much like to go off on some hysterical foul-mouthed tyrade but, the late George Carlin already did it.

    Filled with profanity, but still true in my eyes.

  207. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    “A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.”

    The RDA for Vitamin E is 30 IUs for adults. If you take 40% (12 IUs) more NOTHING HAPPENS! Many adults take 100 – 400 IUs daily. The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg. If you take 40% (24 mg) more NOTHING HAPPENS! Many adults take 300 -1000 mg per day.
    Qualifying percentages certainly matters.

  208. Actually, the 40% Gatesism is a two-edged sword for him. As Smokey keeps asking of him – given this huge 40% increase in CO2, how come no one can measure any adverse consequences that are irrefutably effects caused by this huge 40% increase ??

    Newcomers to this can see the disingenuity of the Gatesism here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    Actually, contemplating Beer’s Law just made me thirsty, I’m off to add to the 40% …………..

  209. @ Moderate Republiwhatever

    I asked Mr. Wirth what HE “is clearly saying”, not for your irrelevant interpretation. And I never said I was oppressed; your tactic of using quotation marks to confer that upon me is laughable.

  210. @buzz:

    Maybe you’ve just got your ‘eye’ well trained to see significance in any weather event that bolsters the AGW hypothesis. I can understand that: a degenerate gambler will see good luck in any hand he’s dealt, even, or espiecially, as his chips run out. Not to imply for a second that you have a gambling problem, but you, like most ‘warmists’ have a need to see validation in the AGW hypothesis at every possible opportunity, either for deep seated psychological reasons, or sometimes just for a career in easy-answer pseudo science. No harm in that really, just don’t expect vague assertions on ‘global weirding’ to get much traction amongst an audience of mostly critical thinkers.

    Regards,

    J Burns

  211. oh my Lord…..a 40% increase, a huge increase since the 1700’s

    .028 to .039 ……….. point, zero……….

    40% of nothing is still nothing…………..

    If CO2 is that powerful, a .01 increase controls the weather/climate….

    ….if we’re in danger of overheating the planet at 390 ppm
    How is it possible that the planet crashed into an ice age when CO2 was 2-4000 ppm?

  212. to JJB MKI,

    “Not to imply for a second that you have a gambling problem,”

    But that is exactly what the AGW and all the cap and trade, carbon tax stuff is !!

    It is spending OUR tax money in the hope of affecting the future. And the returns are going to be far less than the lottery ticket, because the whole issue is based on a hypothesis that is proving time and time again to be incorrect. The only outcome from all this spending will almost certainly be a negative one, certainly from an economic and living standard point of view, because it is all such a totally waste of money on expensive, ineffective, inconsistant energy supply systems.

    A money black-hole !! (except for those in on the game, like Gore and many climate (so-called) scientists.)

  213. Latitude says:
    June 25, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    oh my Lord…..a 40% increase, a huge increase since the 1700′s

    .028 to .039 ……….. point, zero……….

    40% of nothing is still nothing…………..

    If CO2 is that powerful, a .01 increase controls the weather/climate….

    ….if we’re in danger of overheating the planet at 390 ppm
    How is it possible that the planet crashed into an ice age when CO2 was 2-4000 ppm?

    ——

    Hey Latitude,

    Not bad, not bad at all.

    Thanks, you made my Adirondack saturaday OK.

    John

  214. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body….

    Aha, so it’s begging the question right off – remember, too, “the physics” of CO2 that works “just like” gravity, QED? – then promptly on to per cent increases, whereas large per cent increases and decreases of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have apparently not done much of anything to atmospheric temperatures, and the Earth has never died from anything , nor even once yet! Currently, it doesn’t have any physical signs of any disease related to recent per cent increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations – which have instead been correlated with the lowest Accumulated Cyclone Energy ever recorded, as well as with very low historical cat. 4-5 hurricane numbers. Cause and effect, Gates, from those large per cent increases of CO2 concentrations?

    And, Gates! Just when I’d thought you had foresworn scaremongering and also had agreed that China was acting rationally in its production of nearly as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible as a by product of its need for energy so as to cure the diseases it has due to underdevelopment.

    Gates, it’s you who needs a check up.

  215. @Orkneygal:
    June 25, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Brilliantly put, thanks. It’s sad that AGW hysteria from the media and the jaws of bloviating activists has turned environmentalism into a narrow political cause and utterly eclipsed the genuine environmental and humanitarian concerns you list, and that they are being treated with a contempt or indifference they don’t deserve by many on both sides of the argument.

  216. If somebody claimed that smoking 60 cigarettes a day from age 15 to 60 would have no harmful health consequences, I would be able to point to a large number of studies, all with high levels of statistical significance, that point to the contrary. I would not need to resort to calling them deniers, the overwhelming evidence would show them to be deluded. It would not need any careful telling to get the message across.
    If somebody claimed that only a few thousand Jews died in Nazi “resettlement camps” in WW2, I would be able to point to thousands of witness statements (from survivors, camp guards & others), newsreels, documentary evidence from Nazi files and the circumstantial evidence of the missing millions) that point to the contrary. I would not need to resort to calling them deniers, the overwhelming evidence would show them to be deluded. It would not need any careful telling to get the message across.
    Yet when people claim that we must take drastic & immediate to prevent catastrophic global warming, they resort to calling people deniers as a first resort. The “evidence” that is presented is highly circumstantial, along with outputs of computer models that nobody has the courage to term “forecasts”. The best evidence that is provided – that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more of it warms the planet – is a bit like equating a petty thief to a serial killer.
    I live in Britain. In the past when a political campaign failed disastrously, the politicians would admit to failure and resign – or at least slope off quietly. In recent years when they have failed catastrophically at the ballot box, they just say “we failed to get our message across”, then try to get re-elected. The difference is that many politicians have become so “on message”, they cannot recognize the truth, or rejection any more.

  217. kadaka said,

    “Is there something about Climate Science™ that once a pronouncement is made it becomes timeless and unchanging?”

    yep, its referred to as “settled science”.. note that climate science is the ONLY branch of science in which this term is defined. ;-)

  218. “R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    Percentages matter greatly.”
    I do not agree that this is always the case. Let us suppose there is a certain greenhouse gas that we will call X which is 100 times more potent than CO2. Let us suppose further that its concentration was 1 part per trillion in 2000 but now has reached 1 part per billion in 2011. You could then truthfully say that an extremely potent greenhouse gas increased in concentration by 100,000%! Would it be meaningful? Not in my opinion.

  219. John B says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Talkbloke said: “How much gets “squeezed out”?”

    Answer: Pretty much all of it.

    Without non condensing GHGs like O2 to support the GHE, temperatures would fall, water vapour would condense, temperatures would fall some more, and so on.

    Now you are saying that water vapor is not a ghg. CO2 = CAGW supporters say the same thing as atmospheric temperatures rise – “the concentration of water vapor is dependent solely upon atmospheric temperatures” – unless CO2 is present, at which point water vapor then magically starts to act like a ghg and increases the theoretical CO2 warming effect, or the “sensitivity” of atmospheric temperatures to the effect, on and on according to their own “the physics”, so that……”we’re all gonna die!”.

    But under that logic, which also ignores heat loss due to the hydrological cycle, we should have already “died”.

  220. Alicia Frost says:
    June 25, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Geez I was just being super sarcastic….Just predicting LOL.

    Someday, yes, you might be right. In the meantime I fear you just don’t understand Zombies!

  221. Unfortunately Mr Wirth is emblematic of the decline of The USA. Egotistical, corrupt, inbred wank*rs running their own race but under the banner of “all of us”. Show us your science Wirthless, not your impotent venom.

    regards

  222. Bravo Anthony! You did that with facts, with class, and with confidence. Anyone want to bet on Wirth taking you up on your offer?

  223. Werner Brozek says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    “R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    Percentages matter greatly.”

    I do not agree that this is always the case. Let us suppose there is a certain greenhouse gas that we will call X which is 100 times more potent than CO2. Let us suppose further that its concentration was 1 part per trillion in 2000 but now has reached 1 part per billion in 2011. You could then truthfully say that an extremely potent greenhouse gas increased in concentration by 100,000%! Would it be meaningful? Not in my opinion.
    ====================================================================
    Werner, excellent analogy…..
    Don’t let it slip by you that Gates is starting in 1700, a 40% increase since 1700

    1700 was around 280 ppm — that’s .028 — and the middle of the Little Ice Age.

    What he’s really saying is .028 was the Little Ice Age, and we are .039 now…..
    …and that .011 puts us in some serious danger of over heating…………;) LOL

  224. Mr. Watts, do you really “know” that droughts floods and fires are just continuing along as always (the climate is not changing)? How do you “know” that weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed? Do you really “know” that past weather events prove these things?

  225. Anthony: well done. This bloviating a,,hole needs to have his butt kicked, but he’ll never show up to comment or debate.

    All the rest of you: R. Gates is an idiot, along with Skeptical, Moderate Republican and John whatever (and the now completely defrocked and humiliated Buzz Whosit). Why don’t we just completely ignore their stupidity?

  226. @ sceptical:

    re “do you really “know” that droughts floods and fires are just continuing along as always (the climate is not changing)? How do you “know” that weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed? Do you really “know” that past weather events prove these things?”

    I’ll take a whack at this one, if Anthony doesn’t mind.

    You ask, “Can we know that droughts, floods, and fires are continuing along as always?” That’s not the right question, as it is irrelevant. A better question is, Since droughts, floods, and fires have occurred many times in the past, long before CO2 rose in the industrial age, what caused those events? And, once that question is answered, can we rule out that cause (or causes) as the reason for the current events? If someone can provide scientific evidence that the modern events are out of the ordinary, then perhaps one can look to a different cause compared to long-past events.

    One might start the inquiry by assembling the data for such events from the past, especially the frequency, and any trend that may be found. Then, compare those frequencies and trends to the current data. Only if the current frequency and trend are out of the ordinary will there be any cause to look at a different cause. Perhaps that cause will be CO2. (By the way, such an analysis has been performed for tropical cyclones, and the current trend is downward. There are fewer events and total cyclone energy is less. See the excellent work by Dr. Ryan Maue at Florida State University.)

    For my money, it is patently obvious that nothing of current events, droughts, floods, and fires, are out of the ordinary. For example, how many civilizations in modern times have disappeared due to prolonged droughts?

    As to weather patterns never changing, and climate not changing, of course they change. There are, for just one example, remains of petrified logs in the desert Southwest of the US. Apparently, the climate changed rather dramatically in that area. And, it should be noted, that was long before any CO2 was placed into the atmosphere from the industrial revolution and following.

    Sceptical, that was fun. Would you like to play again? Perhaps ask some more questions? There are many, many commenters here on WUWT that can knock such questions out of the park.

  227. tallbloke says:
    June 25, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.

    Ah, now this is much more like it. R. Gates understanding is more advanced than I realised. But he needs to know it’s not just a balanced atmosphere, but an atmosphere in balance with the hydrosphere and biosphere. As such he is also certain to appreciate the IPCC admits a low level of scientific understanding when it comes to the effect of solar variation, particularly in the UV part of the spectrum, on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, and the biology of the ocean surface.

    So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output additive terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.

    Won’t you R. Gates?

    ———
    IPCC projections and GCM’s do not yet fully take into consideration the either the UV effects on the upper atmosphere nor of course the GCR/cloud effect as neither of these are known quantities. Even if and when they are, I seriously doubt the anthropgenic effects related to CO2 will ever be seen as fictional nonsense. CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.

  228. sceptical,
    Get a grip. Stop your pathetic rephrasing or interpreting what Watts is saying and making up asinine things he never said.

    You’ve already been chided for your silly straw man stunt.

    There isn’t a single person here who has ever claimed “(the climate is not changing)” or that “weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed”. Certainly not Watts.

    So asking him how he knows something he never claimed is adolescent and annoying.

    You are either an inept fool who hasn’t been able to grasp that essentially every skeptic believes that weather patterns and climate have always been changing or you are a dishonest nitwit.

    Now is there anything real you want to question?
    How about you? I’d like to hear what makes you think any of the current weather events (changes) are anything more than weather events (changes) in the past 100s or 1000s of years and have nothing to do with CO2?
    If all you’re going to do is parrot the list of events don’t bother

  229. Navy Bob says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:54 am
    Bring it on Wirth. You’ll find out why we have the second amendment.

    =========================

    Hell yes to that, Navy Bob!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  230. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am

    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.

    If you say, with the exception of plants, that we don’t need it at all, you’ll need to explain what will keep the planet warm when all the water vapor condenses from a rapidly cooling planet.

    =====================

    Absolute complete utter insane NONSENSE.

    Nobody….NOBODY…is saying anything close to your hyperbole.

    I mean…really R….how ‘clever’ do you really think you are?

    And, on the flip side, how stupid do you mistakenly think we are?

    Your points are so outlandish and foolish they don’t even deserve to be responded to.

    But, because you are an incessant glutton for punishment (you know…wedgy time)…I even hesitate to bring it up.

    Thanks as always for the laugh.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  231. @sceptical
    June 25, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    As he’s a meteorologist, I’d say odds-on Anthony Watts has never, nor will ever profess to “know” that weather patterns or climate have never changed. That’s some ability to project you’ve got going there. It’s really worth reading the article Anthony links to in this post:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/why-it-seems-that-severe-weather-is-getting-worse-when-the-data-shows-otherwise-a-historical-perspective/

    And hopefully you’ll feel reassured that, despite journalists lazily trotting out tedious alarmism every time the wind blows, we are not heading towards the apocalypse. Or maybe you’ll feel disappointed? I can never tell with warmists.

  232. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.

    ======================================

    Uh huh….and a 40% increase in deep atmospheric moisture may…or may not…have an influence on my chance of normal diurnal summertime thunderstorms where I live.

    And they may bring a 40% chance of storms….or they may bring less than 0% chance.

    Your pathological obsession with this “40%” increase of what is DEFINITELY a trace gas…has you barking up the wrong tree (with a shrill, persistent, yippy, ankle-biting bark)….and putting all of your eggs (though very fragile)…in one flimsy, noodley basket.

    Why not explore the other 99.99% of the natural sciences?

    Or are you already pre-convinced?

    I thought so. Groupthink disorder is alive and well.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  233. savethesharks says:
    June 25, 2011 at 8:13 pm
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am

    So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects?

    ==========================

    Oh and by the way. The magic number is at the bottom level, at about 150 ppm.

    Plants cease photosynthesis at about here.

    The last glaciation approached 180 ppm.

    That number is a little more grave and profound…than that made up “350” nonsense number…..the subject of which, the last time I checked…is a little bit more ON TOPIC than your hijack of this thread.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  234. The Senator will never change his viewpoint because it is political not scientifically based. He will die with this thought on his mind.

  235. Tim Wirth: “They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.”
    As opposed to the Global Warming scammers who have had a Tax-payer funded ride, which they plan to continue?

  236. You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it.

    Yeah – they’ll engage you in a factual discourse…well, when they aren’t comparing you to Nazis, Stalinists, Eugenicists, etc. (And Anthony, I’m glad that you voiced object, but some 50% of your readers didn’t.)

  237. Wirth reminds of the liberal loon from the SF Bay Area – Pete Stark….i think its what happens when you’ve been in gov’t so long, far removed from actually having to produce anything for a living or having to do an honest day’s work.

  238. R.Gates:

    CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.

    Repeating a Mantra/”the physics”, begging the question, appealing to imagined fact in an absence of facts proving the question, then trivializing the question, oops, except perhaps that a significant per cent increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has apparently both quelled ACE and reduced the frequency of higher category Hurricanes according to your own logic, Gates?

    The ER’s in the U.S. are open 24/7 and you don’t have to pay up front or, technically, even say how you will pay or if you are unable to pay, to get evaluated.

  239. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.
    ==============================================
    I think there’s purportedly a consensus on that, and even 97% of climate scientists apparently agree with you.

    So why is it that you and the 97% can’t spend 20 f**ing minutes typing up, for the world to see, in simple bullet points, what is the “some effect” ??

    ……. after 30 years of research and hundreds of millions of research dollars spent, not to mention the billions of dollars in “transaction” fees stolen !!!!!

    (Don’t you ever look in a mirror and ask yourself why you can’t do it ??)

  240. This thread is a verbal [snip] festival of tossers. So is Judith Curry’s passive-aggressive site. At least Watts is finally suggesting egomaniac Monckton may be a liability who oft too lazily adds Gore-level “credibility” to the cause of restoring hard science to it’s proper place in society.

    Here, one radio clip of some tired grumpy old fanatic having a shaky handed kiniption suddenly becomes a Coward vs. Hero Death Match, just because a weatherman blogger got all testy about it? Well I temperamentally scoff at spectator sports enthusiasm too, especially in venues with no hot women around, but something in my discomfort bothers me intellectually to: that in-group primal screaming seems to act as a balme and passifier instead of a call to individually creative activism.

    I’m expressing this very personally, so read between the lines as needed.

  241. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    June 25, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    “……..R. Gates’ link leads to a paywall for Lacis10. Willis’ post’s link to the paper went dead. Google found the paper, but for possible legal reasons, as can be seen by the address, I want to check if it’s okay to post the link. Feel free to snip if it’s not:”

    * * *

    Brilliant work Watson!
    While reading the paper cited, another familar name ( of stomach-turning familiarity, anyways,)
    stood out as the second researcher on the paper.
    ” Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt* , David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy”.

    Looks like our Faux-Climate friend has been busy.

  242. I have the strongest feeling Wirth will bow out of your invite Anthony- and claim AGW is the reason.

  243. savethesharks says @ June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm “Your pathological obsession with this “40%” increase of what is DEFINITELY a trace gas…has you barking up the wrong tree (with a shrill, persistent, yippy, ankle-biting bark)….and putting all of your eggs (though very fragile)…in one flimsy, noodley basket.”

    You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact. Lovelock said it elegantly as well “You can’t put something like a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.”

    And please don’t launch into the typical Smokey “but we don’t have proof” non-sense.

    The only proof you’ll die jumping off a bridge is doing it and dying from it, does that mean you’ll tell your kids “sure, jump off the 20 story tall bridge on to the pavement because I don’t have scientific proof you’ll die”? Word games – or confirmation you don’t understand the basics if the science you try to criticize….

  244. manicbeancounter says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm
    “In recent years when they have failed catastrophically at the ballot box, they just say “we failed to get our message across”, then try to get re-elected. The difference is that many politicians have become so “on message”, they cannot recognize the truth, or rejection any more.”

    Manic, you have just succinctly described our Prime Minister Julia Gillard who spouts carbon “pollution” and saving the planet, selling her rehearsed carbon tax mantra at every opportunity. “truth” does not come into her vocabulary. Its like watching a puppet show – seems we all suffer from these authority crocks who believe their own political spin.


  245. Tom in Florida says:
    June 25, 2011 at 11:52 am

    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
    “CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. ”

    Please explain the daily temperature range in deserts.

    …and especially that most southern of all deserts, Antarctica. I believe the earth’s atmosphere is generally considered to be well mixed so the 40% increase in CO2 there should be pretty much the same as in, say, HumpTulips, WA.

  246. Richard111 says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:10 am

    A comment above made me think. Why hasn’t any AGW proponent attempted to put their case here? They would have direct access to a very wide audience of umm.. doubters?

    There have been many guest articles here from AGW proponents. As far as I know, Anthony has always been courteous in that regard. There is no prohibition on anyone posting anything in response to any blog article providing it does not violate forum rules.

  247. For those debating R. Gates, good on you for pointing out his half truth’s and unsubstantiated claims. If I may however, please allow me to point the debate in a slightly different direction. Were we to simply accept R. Gates claim at face value, and put it in proper perspective, we’d see that even if correct, his claim is worded in such a fashion as to misrepresent that facts and create a perception that many of those not familiar with the terms of reference and basic physics that they imply would fall for.

    R. Gates asks, that if CO2 is as insignificant as skeptics suggest, how low would it have to go before it would be “too low” and the temperature drop associated would be a disaster. In essence he is correct. Significantly less CO2 would in fact result in a temperature decrease (provided that doing so did not trigger any secondary changes that compensated). This is classic misdirection. He has used a completely true argument in a completely disingenuous fashion.

    The issue is not how much the temperature would drop if we had less CO2, the issue is how much would the temperature rise if we had more. To the uninitiated, it would seem like those are simply equal, but opposite effects. They are not.

    Sensitivity is never quoted as “degrees per parts per million” of CO2 for a reason. It is quoted as “degrees per CO2 doubling” by the most ardent of warmists and skeptics alike. In brief, a 40% decrease in CO2 from a given starting point has a completely different “number of degrees” associated with it compared to a 40% increase from the same starting point.

    The following is illustrative. Let us presume a starting point of 280 ppm, and a current concentration of 380 ppm. Let us further assume that we can attribute a change in global temperature to that 100 ppm increase of 0.5 degrees C. This is how R. Gates and the alarmists tell the absolute truth, and a total lie at the same time:

    280ppm + 100ppm = 380 = +0.5
    280ppm – 100ppm = 180 = -1.0
    180ppm – 100ppm = 80 = -2.0

    So…a decrease of 200ppm from 280 would be a total of -3 degrees. But if we go up instead of down, we see that increasing the amount of CO2 becomes increasingly….meaningless.

    280ppm + 100ppm = 380 = +0.5
    380ppm + 100ppm = 480 = +0.25
    480ppm + 100ppm = 580 = +0.125
    580ppm + 100ppm = 680 = +0.0625

    So, while -200ppm gives us -3.0 degrees, +400ppm gives us only +0.9375 degrees.

    This is the heart of the alarmist claptrap, and I’ve seen enough of R. Gates posts to suggest that he knows it. CO2 has been increasing at about 2ppm per year for the last several decades. If we accept that 100% of the warming we have seen since 1920 when the industrial age began producing signiifcant consumption of fossil fuel, we would expect that over the next 150 years we would see no more than an additional 0.44 degrees. And in 300 years at that rate..only 0.22 more than that.

    The warmist hysteria revolves completely around misdirection. A major decrease in CO2 would in fact be a potential disaster. But once one gets to 400ppm, further increases are…

    As meaningless as R. Gates insistance that he is 75% warmist and 25% skeptic.

  248. I am amused that this worthless (no pun intended), two-bit, former politician would try to “come after” anyone. He is an intellectual mountebank, and Anthony I know you will hoist him by his pretentious petard on this subject. Come on, Tim, come on. You’ll be blitzed, beaten, and (intellectually) bloodied by the end of June 30.

  249. R Gates – you appear to have forgotten that the Green House Effect due to CO2 is logarithmic whereas your 40% of body parts is a linear effect. A doubling of CO2 only creates a 1.6C rise in temperature, well within natural variability.

  250. Joshua says:
    June 25, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it.

    Yeah – they’ll engage you in a factual discourse…well, when they aren’t comparing you to Nazis, Stalinists, Eugenicists, etc. (And Anthony, I’m glad that you voiced object, but some 50% of your readers didn’t.)
    ===========================================================
    Joshua, it is an unfortunate turn of events, the vitriol is horrendous in the larger global climate discussion. But, it was brought on by the warmists. After decades at attempts for civil discourse about the issue, many have given up on the idea it can happen. Josh, I don’t know how long you’ve been involved in the climate discussion, but many of us have been at it for several years, and only very recently have we had forums where we can all gather and put forth our ideas and thoughts. Until recently, we’ve been subjected to every form of derisive insult one can imagine.

    Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that much of the suggested actions taken are both anti-democratic and and anti-capitalism. (Historically, when suggested courses of action were both, we’ve seen some form of totalitarian socialism.) But that’s for another time.

    It doesn’t help when there are no shouts from the warmist side to quit attempting to label us “anti-science”, paid by oil, deniers, flat-earthers and worse. You don’t like the words you’re being label with? Quit embracing them. If some pinhead suggests skeptics should be tattooed, correct him. If a bunch of moronic imbeciles believe its a good idea to make a snuff film killing skeptics, go after them. Until something like that happens, unfortunately, you’ll be identified as being supportive of such tactics. To quote from a film, “I say, don’t start none, there won’t be none.”—- or something to that effect.

    Best wishes,

    James

  251. There is always a large number of fires on the earth every year. It is part of normal cycles in nature.

    Cyclical fires on Earth from 2000 to 2010 as detected using Terra and Aqua satellites:

  252. I doubt he will accept the challenge but you can hire him for speaker appearances, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs. Perhaps we could start a collection for the next conference.

  253. Anthony,

    Sincerely, what can I do to help? How can I, and perhaps more of the legion of rational ‘deniers’, assist you in applying this desperately need application of the mailed glove to both upper cheeks (and a hard boot to both lower cheeks!) of Mr. Wirth? You have issued a direct challenge to the opposition, an overt offensive action, and I very much want to help make your challenge successful! I’m bloody sick of playing defense!

    Can we make this a team effort? Please, Let Us Help !!!!! Call it the Scientific Method Action Crew, for Evolved HuManity (SMAC EHM!). We can provide manpower and funds …. for strategically placed ads in mainstream media, including Mr. Wirth’s home town newspapers…. and strategically placed web ads on social and scientific web sites inviting Mr. Wirth to ‘Put Up or Shut Up’!. We could identify a multitude of websites, scientific, news, and social media, and politely invite the WUWT audience to use them all to publicly challenge Mr. Wirth to test, in open forum, if his AGW (nit)wits are sufficient to back up the BIG check his mouth has written. All thoughtfully provided with links back to WUWT, of course! I’m sure the wonderfully creative WUWT participants can think of many more grassroots ways to make this challenge sooooo high profile and hugely public that Mr. Wirth cannot sidestep it, lest he be shown to be a political and personal charlatan. Let’s ALL Go On Offense!!!

    I’m not married to a wealthy heiress or the recipient of east coast ‘old money’ like Mr. Wirth, but I’ll put my hard earned money where my mouth is. If you think this approach has merit, I’ll pledge $200 US to kick it off. You have my email address, Anthony…. let me know how I can help. mtk

  254. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    IPCC projections and GCM’s do not yet fully take into consideration the either the UV effects on the upper atmosphere nor of course the GCR/cloud effect as neither of these are known quantities. Even if and when they are, I seriously doubt the anthropgenic effects related to CO2 will ever be seen as fictional nonsense. CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.

    You are avoiding the question I asked, which was:
    “So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output radiative terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.
    Won’t you R. Gates?

    And while we are on the subject of avoided questions, you haven’t responded to this:
    “You are also persisting in trying to claim the secular rise in surface T since the Little Ice Age for co2, when you (hopefully) know that the vast majority of the increase in co2 took place after 1900.”

    Or this:
    “I don’t know whether Earth would be an ice planet without co2. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. It all depends on which assumptions you plug into models.”

    Answer the points R. Gates.

  255. davidmhoffer says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    absolutely!
    And of course, the crazy exponential type graph of CO2 rises cannot be correlated to similar exponential type rises in temps. Nevertheless, the warmists and alarmists continue to use the CO2 graph as illustrative (in the alarmist sense) of mans CO2 emittive destructive nature – ignoring any non-linear relationship (if indeed there is any significant relationship between CO2 and temp at the levels of changes observed!) and ignoring any ‘limit’ or ‘saturation’ effects. The CO2 graph is the primary tool in the warmist armoury because it is so dramatic! Hence, the need for the false hockey stick type correlation to drive home the false message and hence the further need to dfend the HS to the hilt.
    If R Gates was remotely sceptic – he/she would note the lack of any clear relationship/correlation and start to ask more pertinent questions instead of providing dogmatic tantric chanting type repitition of false analysis.
    I am more than happy to accept that CO2 is potentially causing some warming, even though I don’t agree with the ‘quantitative’ assessment as provided by the peddlars and shysters at the IPCC. To my immediate knowledge, there is no absolute accepted or demonstrable (proven – if you prefer) quantitative link between CO2 and temps. If there was, and I don’t mean models here, this whole debacle of AGW would not be the subject of debate! Even the qualitative relationship is ‘ropey’ when we review the longer term palaeoclimate reconstructions and the simple fact of earths natural climatic variation.
    Any idiot can look at the CO2 graph and note the rises. But, even with all the ‘fudging’ and station drop outs, UHI, etc – nobody can look at the global temp anomaly and say there is a direct correlation – because it simply isn’t there in the data. The alarmists are on the run – because their esteemed CO2 graph keeps rising but the temperatures do not reflect the same inexorable rise. So its ‘excuse this’, and ‘ignore that’, etc, etc . But even a 10 year old child could ‘review’ the AGW CO2 hypothesis from the CO2 and Temp graphs and OBSERVE that it is NOT proven and moreover, with a little thinking – would then dismiss the alarmists ‘sky is falling’ claims out of hand!.

  256. Back On Topic (or close enough):
    Warning: Foul Offensive Language alert! (highlighted in bold in body of text below)

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ted-turner-climate-change-most-serious-m

    (Note: I just noticed R. de Haan’s new comment mentioning the article when I was just about to post. This is about something besides Turner found in the article.)

    Ted Turner: Climate Change ‘Most Serious … Problem Humanity Has Ever Faced’
    Friday, June 24, 2011
    By Pete Winn

    (CNSNews.com) – Media mogul Ted Turner says climate change is “probably the most serious–and, in all fairness, the most complex–problem that humanity has ever faced.”

    He added: “It is really easy to understand how some people don’t get it, because it’s so complex and complicated.”

    His comments came in response to a question posed by reporter Sunny Lewis of the Environment News Service about how to change the minds of climate change skeptics.

    “A few climate skeptics and deniers seem to be holding up action to curb climate change,” Lewis said. “What can be done to convince and persuade these holdouts as to actually realize what so many scientists know and are telling us in urgent terms?”

    Ted Turner wisely did not use the “d-word,” that was egested from “reporter” Sunny Lewis. See the “About” page for “Environment News Service”:

    http://www.ens-newswire.com/about.asp

    The Environment News Service is the original daily international wire service of the environment. Established in 1990 by Editor-in-Chief Sunny Lewis and Managing Editor Jim Crabtree, it is independently owned and operated.

    Thus this is not some mere hack enviro-reporter using the Foul Offensive Word, but the Editor-in-Chief, showing that not only is such language condoned at ENS but it is implicitly encouraged (do what the boss does).

    The Environment News Service (ENS) exists to present late-breaking environmental news in a fair and balanced manner.

    The presentation leaves something to be desired. Like fairness and balance.

    Of course this Lewis person (Ms, or perhaps Mr? Anyone here know for sure?) has an interesting record with “fairness and accuracy,” as can be seen with this listing of stories by that author (all but one sourced from ENS) found on AlterNet. Here’s a beauty from 2004 about the planned “Cape Wind” project off of Cape Cod:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/20502/where_the_wind_blows/

    The first off-shore wind farm in the U.S. will produce clean energy, lower electricity prices, create jobs and harm no animals, birds or fish. So what if it blocks the view.

  257. Moderate Republican says:
    June 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    savethesharks says @ June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact. Lovelock said it elegantly as well “You can’t put something like a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.”

    And please don’t launch into the typical Smokey “but we don’t have proof” non-sense.

    The only proof you’ll die jumping off a bridge is doing it and dying from it, does that mean you’ll tell your kids “sure, jump off the 20 story tall bridge on to the pavement because I don’t have scientific proof you’ll die”? Word games – or confirmation you don’t understand the basics if the science you try to criticize….
    ==========================================

    Cringeworthy, from top to bottom.

    I think you’re past your expiry date MR.

  258. R.Gates – I have read it, it appears to me you haven’t. If you think it has already answered my questions, then please, find the exact references for me.

    Because it claims that it “explains how the CO2 thermostat works”, doesn’t mean it actually does. In fact, it doesn’t. It just keeps repeating that it is the thermostat and that is not an explanation of “how”.

  259. Moderate Republican says:
    June 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    savethesharks says @ June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact. Lovelock said it elegantly as well “You can’t put something like a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.”
    =================================================================

    MR, CO2 is a good thing. yes, you can put a trillion tons of CO2 without something nasty happening. It is beneficial to all of the flora and fauna of this earth. What you stated is analogous to having too much food supply or fresh water. Its a ridiculous posit. Have you checked out the biosphere lately?

  260. Andy G55 says:

    “Many eons ago, when the Earth was much younger than to day, a life-form , called plants came into being.
    This life-form used the precious life giving gas in the atmosphere to produce its very structure.”

    The plants eventually used up over 90% of the precious life giving gas and buried it in deposits where it was inaccessible.

    Fortunately humans eventually evolved. In the nick of time just before plants were becoming stunted from the shortage of the life giving gas, man learned how to replenish that gas by digging down to get coal and oil, and burning the same. Unwanted trees and vegetation was also burned.

    Slowly the life giving gas increased in the atmosphere, allowing useful plants to grow at their best potential once again.

  261. Keith Kloor, you are truly pathetic. Your comment and the rabble-rousing you stir up in your blog cannot find anything to dispute the skeptical position that the “carbon” scare is trumped up and fed with public grant money, so you fall back on the racism canard. No wonder the traffic at your blog is minuscule. Really, you’re almost as pathetic as Joe Romm.

  262. Davidmhoffer,

    By your reasoning, CO2 could go to 3000 ppm or even 10,000 ppm with very little commensurate warming. What you fail to take into consideration is the additional positive feedback effects that additional amounts of CO2 bring. It is, and always has been, the positive feedbacks created by additional CO2, that have been the biggest concern and have clearly been seen in GCM’s, and appear to be clearly occurring in areas like the arctic and with global humidity levels. It is very good that you finally answered my question about the downward range of CO2 as we can begin to have an honest dialog now. You’ve admitted, quite correctly, that changes in CO2 do in fact create swing in earth’s temperature. The issue now is one of sensitivity. What we need to discuss now is feedback effects and what additional forcings may be created by a warmer world. No climate scientist would deny that the raw effect of CO2 is logarithmic, for this is basic physics, but rather, what additional positive feedbacks are kicked in at various levels of CO2? This goes right to the issue that the majority of climate scientists care about– the issue of sensitivity.

  263. Mr. Sowell, thanks for the response, but you didn’t answer any of my questions including why the existence of weather in the past precludes climate change from taking place in the present.

    Mr. Sowell, I’m unsure why you think petrified trees in Arizona means there was climate change in the past.

  264. Moderate Republican says:
    June 25, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact.
    ===================================================================

    Our atmosphere is buffered by nitrogen, nitrogen is ~70% of our atmosphere.
    Dry air contains roughly ~ 78.09% nitrogen, ~21% oxygen, ~1% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and extremely small amounts of other gases.
    ……we are talking about CO2, increasing it 40%, which is going from 0.028 to 0.039..
    …and increase of “forcer” of only 0.011
    I’m sorry, but CO2 is not that powerful.
    CO2 was 0.028 in 1700, that did not stop the planet from going into the Little Ice Age……
    ….a increase of “forcer” by 0.011 will not do it either

    CO2 levels of ~2000 ppm to ~4000 ppm, did not even stop the planet from going into ice ages.

    It makes no sense to say a CO2 increase of 0.011 is going to cause run away global warming,
    When 4000 ppm can not stop an ice age……….

  265. Mr. Steve Oregon, ” I’d like to hear what makes you think any of the current weather events (changes) are anything more than weather events (changes) in the past 100s or 1000s of years and have nothing to do with CO2?”

    I don’t think this. You are confused. Thank you though for the insults. Do you feel climate plays any role in weather?

  266. Gates, climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 is extremely small, ranging from zero [Miskolczi] to 0.46 [Spencer] to ≤1.0 [Lindzen]. Thus, a doubling of CO2 is nothing to get alarmed about. The world would be a warmer, healthier place if CO2 doubled – which would still leave it firmly in the “trace gas” category [eg: argon is ≈1% of the air, while CO2 is less than 4/100ths of the atmosphere].

    If climate sensitivity to CO2 was higher, then temperature would closely track changes in CO2. But it doesn’t.

    Admit that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, or we will see that you are intentionally raising a false alarm over a harmless trace gas that is essential to the biosphere.

  267. tallbloke says:
    June 26, 2011 at 2:19 am
    R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    IPCC projections and GCM’s do not yet fully take into consideration the either the UV effects on the upper atmosphere nor of course the GCR/cloud effect as neither of these are known quantities. Even if and when they are, I seriously doubt the anthropgenic effects related to CO2 will ever be seen as fictional nonsense. CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.

    You are avoiding the question I asked, which was:
    “So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output radiative terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.
    Won’t you R. Gates?

    And while we are on the subject of avoided questions, you haven’t responded to this:
    “You are also persisting in trying to claim the secular rise in surface T since the Little Ice Age for co2, when you (hopefully) know that the vast majority of the increase in co2 took place after 1900.”

    Or this:
    “I don’t know whether Earth would be an ice planet without co2. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. It all depends on which assumptions you plug into models.”

    Answer the points R. Gates.
    ————–
    1. The fact that the IPCC has not taken taken all (so far unquantified) forcings into account does not make their certainty levels “fictional nonsense”. We simply don’t know at this point what these unknown and so far unquantifed forcings may or may not mean. How could we?

    2. I have issues with many of the ways the IPCC has conducted business, and I do believe there will be additional forcings identified and eventually quantified and put into future climate models such as UV and potentially GCR/cloud effects, but I think the basic tenets of CO2 leading the way to a warmer planet are quite solid.

    3. I use 280 ppm as my baseline level at which anthropogenic additions to this level begin to kick in around the year 1750. Yes, the growth was slow at first, and yes, the majority of the growth of CO2 (and the warming) has come in the past 100 years, but it began around 1750 with industrialization. So, given that we are now about 114 ppm over that 280 ppm, that would be just over 40%.

    4. In in regards to lower or no CO2 levels leading to an ice-planet— of course I don’t know this for a certainty, but if you told me you were going to transport me to a planet just like earth in every way but with no CO2, I’d kindly ask for some very good cold weather gear and a good pair of sun goggles and prepare for existence in a place much like Antarctica…very cold, very icy, with low humidity and little precipitation.

  268. Smokey says:
    June 26, 2011 at 5:57 am

    “Admit that CO2 is harmless and beneficial, or we will see that you are intentionally raising a false alarm over a harmless trace gas that is essential to the biosphere.”

    ——–
    How many times do we have to go over this?

    WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.

  269. Smokey: that’s too simplistic an answer. It assumes the system energy changes from increased CO2 all goes into surface air temperature — it obviously doesn’t. It also goes into energy to melt ice, into increased atmospheric humidity, and into the deep ocean, etc — all of which are changes that are observationally seen. Hence the climate sensitivity can easily be higher than the low figures you quote.

    To paraphrase yourself: “Admit that increased CO2 concentrations are not necessarily harmless and are problematic, or we will see that you are intentionally denying a potentially problematic increase over a key trace gas that is essential to keeping the biosphere as warm as it is”

    :)

  270. Mr. Watts, “To do that, we have to assume his claim relates to Dr. Jim Hansen’s warning in 1988 that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the then 350 parts per million, to the now 390 parts per million made the claim of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” happen.”

    To make this assumption you have to also assume that all effects of the increase up to 350 ppm had been fully realized. Is this really your understanding of the science of climate Mr. Watts, that all effects of a forcing are instantly fully realized? Do you think this is a proper understanding to teach your followers?

  271. Roger, as always, provides the meat of the debate. “’Can we know that droughts, floods, and fires are continuing along as always?’ That’s not the right question, as it is irrelevant. A better question is, since droughts, floods, and fires have occurred many times in the past, long before CO2 rose in the industrial age, what caused those events?” 4 marks Roger.

    The 40% statistic is nothing but conjecture as to its potential to drive a change in weather pattern variation. To take it back a step, it must not drive the weather event itself, the weather event is just the symptom of a change in what drives the weather event. To prove that a 40% increase in CO2 is now in charge of weather pattern change, it must have the ability to change the parameters of weather events, even to counteract those natural parameters of weather events. It must be able to show, for example, that in the presence of the parameters typical of bringing about a cold front, the temperature is abnormally hot given the cold front’s existance. And it must continue to show this ability in increasing potential. Otherwise you have two equally competing parameters: change in CO2 and natural parameters. Meaning the null hypothesis stands.

    If natural parameters can explain the weather event, you cannot, using gold standard and unimpeachable scientific methods, ascribe it to CO2. Which is exactly what both NOAA and NASA have done in their reports of recent weather events. End of debate.

  272. Gates says:

    “WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.”

    CO2 has been almost twenty times the current concentration, and no climate catastrophe resulted. Using past parameters as your ‘range’ shows that CO2 is completely harmless. You’re scaring yourself over a non-problem.

  273. R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:18 am
    WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.
    ======================================================================
    Gates, Since CO2 levels are the lowest they have ever been in the history of this planet, barring mass extinction events….
    The average has been at least 1500 ppm, and much higher than that when most present day things evolved….
    Since it’s only common sense that plants do not die when you stop fertilizing, they only slow down….

    What range do you think is beneficial?

  274. Skeptical,

    Your participation here seems to be based on ignorance, either feigned or otherwise, since your “responses” always seem to indicate a lack of understanding of someone else’s comment or consist of a series of questions (most of them rhetorical).

    So lets play your game.

    To make this assumption you have to also assume that all effects of the increase up to 350 ppm had been fully realized. Is this really your understanding of the science of climate Mr. Watts, that all effects of a forcing are instantly fully realized? Do you think this is a proper understanding to teach your followers?

    Your question seems to be based on the assumption that there is significant harm in having CO2 levels even at 350 ppm, since you imply that not all the “bad” things had worked there way through the pipeline yet when the level hit 350..

    So why is 350 ppm now the magically “safe” level we need to strive for? Is this the proper level of understanding James Hansen should be teaching his followers?

  275. sceptical,
    Can you have a normal conversation.
    Either respond to an actual claim or at least clearly convey your own opinions.

    You’ve done neither.

    Your silly weather/climate queries are a useless merry go round.

    Your last question:
    “Do you feel climate plays any role in weather?” is ridiculous.

    What’s next?

    “Do you feel weather plays any role in climate?”

    You’re insulting yourself.

  276. sceptical says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:21 am
    “…. Do you think this is a proper understanding to teach your followers?”
    You’re thinking it wrongly, being skeptical is not a cult. It works differently to CAGW you do not have a guru master and followers.

  277. As the sun goes to sleep for the next 30 years we can already see those antarctic/arctic spirals of cold air reaching further into the subtropics. They will then become a more less permanent feature which will result in considerable expansion of the poles. See here in Vivo

    http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp8.html

  278. > June 25, 2011 at 9:08 pm: Joshua says: ” Yeah – they’ll engage you in a factual discourse…well, when they aren’t comparing you to Nazis, Stalinists, Eugenicists, ”
    As opposed to factual discourse of Global Warmers with their “Deniers”, “Radical Right-wingers”, “Court Jesters”, “Idiots”, …

    It is impossible for “Deniers” (like myself) of AGW to have factual discourse when pro-pundits of AGW:
    a) ignore/dismiss factual science (math, chemistry, physics) that counters AGW claims,
    b) alter, delete, and cherry/lemon pick GW data,
    c) declare the debate of Global Warming is over (period).

  279. R. Gates says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am

    “So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects?”

    Well lets see you have said yourself CO2 has increased 40% over what it has been for most of the Holocene. So reducing current levels by 40% would bring us what?

    Oh I know we would still have the MWP, the Roman Warm Period and the Holocene peak.
    At least one of those periods was quite a bit warmer than today and possibly the others. So we could obviosly reduce by more than 40% with no obvious definite cooling. Beyond that why worry if you reduced it by more than 60% most life on Earth would cease to exist.

    I think there is a level where reducing CO2 would definitly bring a reduction but that this is likely to be at a level that would eliminate most animal life anyway so it is moot as we will not be alive to measure it.

    So what do you think the level is that will bring definite cooling

    Alan

  280. R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, R. Gates says, …yada, yada,yada.

    But I repeat myself. Pardon please
    sarc off/


    davidmhoffer says:
    June 25, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Right on; I think you nailed it.

  281. R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:05 am
    1. The fact that the IPCC has not taken taken all (so far unquantified) forcings into account does not make their certainty levels “fictional nonsense”. We simply don’t know at this point what these unknown and so far unquantifed forcings may or may not mean. How could we?

    Exactly. Which is why a 95% certainty that humans caused most of the temperature rise since the IPCC say we did is a fictional nonsense. They admit they have a “low level of scientific understanding” about potentially large forcings, but claim a 95% certainty?? Nonsense.

    2. I have issues with many of the ways the IPCC has conducted business, and I do believe there will be additional forcings identified and eventually quantified and put into future climate models such as UV and potentially GCR/cloud effects, but I think the basic tenets of CO2 leading the way to a warmer planet are quite solid.

    As I said before, the quantity and latitudinal distribution of water in the atmosphere makes this impossible to call.

    3. I use 280 ppm as my baseline level at which anthropogenic additions to this level begin to kick in around the year 1750. Yes, the growth was slow at first, and yes, the majority of the growth of CO2 (and the warming) has come in the past 100 years, but it began around 1750 with industrialization.

    What is the best estimate of co2 levels in 1900? and 1950? Moana loa gives ~315 for 1958. What caused the increase in surface T from ~1900 to ~1945? It is coincident with the positive phase of the IPO (interdecadal pacific oscillation). So is the warming from 1976 to 2005. How much is given to the IPO in models? Nothing. What a joke. But the IPCC expect us to believe co2 was the main driver? Get real.

    4. In in regards to lower or no CO2 levels leading to an ice-planet— of course I don’t know this for a certainty, but if you told me you were going to transport me to a planet just like earth in every way but with no CO2, I’d kindly ask for some very good cold weather gear and a good pair of sun goggles and prepare for existence in a place much like Antarctica…very cold, very icy, with low humidity and little precipitation.

    How prudent of you. Prudence is not scientific evidence however.

  282. fredb says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:20 am

    Smokey: that’s too simplistic an answer. It assumes the system energy changes from increased CO2 all goes into surface air temperature — it obviously doesn’t. It also goes into energy to melt ice, into increased atmospheric humidity, and into the deep ocean, etc — all of which are changes that are observationally seen. Hence the climate sensitivity can easily be higher than the low figures you quote.

    “Non-responsive to the empirical studies mentioned, Smokey’s actual argument, other facts, and the implications of its own logic: assumes the existence of facts not existing – increased atmospheric humidity/optical density and deep ocean heat increase; denies existing facts – decrease in atmospheric humidity and no change in optical density, failure of Argo buoys to see heat transfer to the “deep ocean”, net increase in Antarctic and total sea ice; and essentially argues that since, despite facts, anything is still possible, everything imaginable must exist, therefore further disproving its own relevance to the real world.”

  283. Well done! However, his heating up the room is not a bad idea. It should be standard practice for all government buildings in DC. Remove all air conditioning. That alone should reduce the total number of laws generated, most of which are worthless, IMO.

  284. @ Pamela, thank you. Reading your comments on WUWT is always a pleasure.

    @ sceptical, the petrified forest is in New Mexico, not Arizona. You could read up on it at this link. And yes, its climate has definitely changed. And somehow did it long before the Industrial Age and man’s emissions of CO2, and airport developments with temperature stations located there, and numerous computer models that don’t agree but predict calamitous warming.

    As an aside, just how settled can the “science” be if the climate scientists require multiple models, and those models yield greatly different results? Somehow, I don’t recall there being multiple equations for the pull of gravity, which is that g = 32.2 ft per second per second (at the Earth’s surface at sea level). There are not 23 other models with results ranging from 25 to 45. I also don’t recall there being any false predictions from the (sole) gravitational model – the fact that satellites are launched into orbit successfully proves that. In addition, the fact that skyscrapers don’t fall from their own weight, and bridges are still standing, is further testament to the validity of the gravitational model.

    When climate scientists’ climate models can match the validity, and sole model, of our gravitational model, then they can say their science is settled. Y’all have a LONG way to go on that one.

    http://www.petrified.forest.national-park.com/info.htm

  285. R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:18 am
    ……………………..
    WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial. Go outside that range, and it could have very harmful effects to life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.

    This must explain why the biosphere has been greening in recent decades.

    I wish you would play another record. A trace rise of the trace gas co2 is good for life and not bad as you speculate. I see you have the warmist language up to speed: could, may, might, if……..

    Here is what the harmfull co2 is capable of:

    Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
    “Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.

    C02 And Increased Plant Growth

    http://www.news.wisc.edu/17436

    http://aspenface.mtu.edu/

    http://news.duke.edu/2009/08/carbonseed.html

    http://www.ias.sdsmt.edu/STAFF/INDOFLUX/Presentations/14.07.06/session1/myneni-talk.pdf

  286. Roger Sowell,

    Big difference between describing a dynamical system existing in a state spatio-temporal chaos and a physical law. Comparing climate dynamics to graviation is ridiculous.

  287. R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 5:31 am
    “By your reasoning, CO2 could go to 3000 ppm or even 10,000 ppm with very little commensurate warming”

    Gatesism #3 – Begin addressing 110 ppm increase and jump to an increase of 2720 ppm to even 9720 ppm and claim it is the same argument.

    I will give you due credit Gates, you are quite the chameleon.

    R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 6:18 am
    “WITHIN A RANGE CO2 is beneficial.”
    As asked prior, what is your best guess as to the appropriate range of CO2?

    ” Go outside that range” .
    Again, what is your best guess for this range?

    I notice a typical Gates qualifier inserted here. “life and ecological systems as we’ve come to know them.” I will give you more credit, you are also quite the dodge ball artist.

  288. @ R. Gates,. re gravity law and such.

    I refer to your statement earlier: “Big difference between describing a dynamical system existing in a state spatio-temporal chaos and a physical law. Comparing climate dynamics to graviation is ridiculous.”

    No, it is not ridiculous. It is entirely analogous. One is a science in its infancy, necessarily so due to the short time of study, the even shorter time of adequate instrumentation via satellites, and computing power to solve the equations. The other is a mature science, with measurements taken over centuries, equation fully worked out (for normal conditions of Newtonian physics), and literally millions of tests that fully validate the model. I fully recognize that gravity at the quantum level is somewhat mysterious. Also, how gravity “works” across vast distances of space is not yet understood. But for ordinary purposes of life on Earth, and even sending rocket payloads to other planets, around the sun, and such, the gravity equation works quite well.

    But, if you insist upon a more similar proven, complex science, then consider the multi-dimensional advanced process control arena, with highly non-linear, coupled dynamic equations solved hundreds of times per hour that invokes hundreds of variables, constraints, and thermodynamics plus various forms of optimization algorithms. If you are unfamiliar, you could do an internet search on the terms “dynamic matrix control.” These systems have been in use in many hundred thousands of applications since the early 1960s, almost 50 years of proven experience. The practitioners and their work can be found in the Journal of Process Control, among other places. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09591524

    The field of Process dynamics uses proven physical, chemical, and process control science, plus computer science, to yield predictable, reliable results. If any one of these systems failed as miserably as the “settled” science of man-made global warming due to man’s emissions of CO2, there would be chaos, but it would be the chaos of refineries exploding, chemical plants erupting and spewing their hazardous contents over the populace, power plants shorting out and burning up, among other dire events. Instead, these complex systems run smoothly 24-7, under control and as planned.

    Or, if you prefer a different complex system with non-linear, dynamic equations, one could use the radiative heat transfer equations used to design and operate high-temperature fossil-fuel-fired furnaces. Such furnaces are operating continuously in close to a million boilers, power generating plants, and process heating applications around the world. These use the well-known Stefan-Boltzman equations, with appropriate adjustments for water vapor and carbon dioxide for their radiative and absorptive properties, but more importantly, the mean beam length. No guessing, no multiple models with a range of outputs, no speculation as to what does and does not influence the outcome, just good hard empirical and theoretical science and engineering. They work. They have worked for literally millions of operating-hours worldwide, for many decades.

    Climate science involving AGW? Not so much.

    That was fun, R. Gates. Want to play again?

  289. Former Dem Senator: Climate Change Caused U.S. Floods, Fires; We Need ‘Aggressive Campaign To Go After’ ‘Deniers’

    Friday, June 24, 2011
    By Michael W. Chapman

    The headline was changed. It now reads:

    Help Wanted: For an ‘Aggressive Program to Go After … Deniers’ of Climate Change
    Friday, June 24, 2011
    By Michael W. Chapman

    I couldn’t find out when, or why, they changed the headline. I hope someone saved a screencap.

  290. R. Gates says:
    June 26, 2011 at 5:31 am
    Davidmhoffer,
    By your reasoning, CO2 could go to 3000 ppm or even 10,000 ppm with very little commensurate warming. What you fail to take into consideration is the additional positive feedback effects that additional amounts of CO2 bring.>>>

    More misdirection R. Gates? And a rather weak attempt, if I might add. But if you insist:

    1. In my explanation, I attributed 100% of the warming observed over the last century to CO2 emissions as the root cause. Having done so, the feedbacks, be they positive or negative, have been included in the calculations presented. Your suggestion that I failed to take them into consideration might be poor understanding on your part of the model presented, or perhaps just a disingenuous comment. either way it is completely misleading and totaly false.

    2. Your comments seem to imply that you accept the decreasing direct effects of CO2 concentrations, but then also imply that increasing CO2 concentrations would still cause feedback effects even though the direct temperature effects are almost zero. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If additional CO2 concentrations have minimal direct temperature effects (as you admit) then there are no feedback effects either since the feedback you claim is a direct consequence of the direct temperature increase, which you admit is nearly zero.

    3. By my reasoning, in fact 3000pppm or 10,000ppm would be quite safe, and mother earth agrees with me. Ice core records and geological records are very clear that the earth has at times been at those concentrations in the past with very little difference in temperature to our current climate. In fact, greenhouse growers pump those concentrations and higher into their greenhouses to get maximum crop production. This suggests to anyone who has a modicum of understanding of evolutionary processes that the plants we take for granted as food crops evolved ind in climates similar to the temperatures and moisture we have today, but at much, much, MUCH higher concentrations of CO2. Which matches with the ice core records and the geological record.

    Nice try, but total fail.

  291. R. Gates says:

    Comparing climate dynamics to graviation is ridiculous.

    Hahaha, no, it sounds a bit too correct compared to your usual verbiage, Gates: maybe you too have gravy on the brain? But at least you’ve admitted the “begging the question” nature of your claim that the Earth is like a person’s body, despite the gravy present – which I suspect will cost you some of it.

  292. [Snip. Your insults regarding our host are getting tedious. Take a time out. ~dbs, mod.]

  293. Moderate Republican says:

    You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one.

    ==========================

    LOL.

    “Fixated”, yes, because I bird-dog in on spin and holes in logic.

    R Gates is the best example of that….just a wedgy waiting to happen.

    [Evidently so are you].

    If you define “simple and elegant” as being pure and utter sophistry…then, OK, you are correct.

    BTW….you quote Lovelock. How does he reconcile the necessity of CO2? Would he starve Gaia of her needed CO2?

    Duh. I didn’t think so.

    Wedgy time.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  294. Excellent, thorough dissection, Anthony. How fortunate that you had that hour to chill and then turn your anger into something so productive. I have bookmarked this post and will send it to everyone I read who squawks about the unprezzzzzidented storms of 2011. It won’t change any minds but it will at least muzzle their infernal, infantile racket for a few days.

    BTW, Chrichton called Wirth & Hansen & Gore on their 1988 dog & pony show in 2004 – a year before State of Fear. And he didn’t have that video confession since it didn’t exist. The guy always did his homework.

  295. Oh, and full disclosure: I voted for Wirth in the late ’70s.

    I can admit that w/out too much embarrassment, recalling Churchill’s “If you’re not liberal when you’re young you have no heart; if you’re not conservative when you’re old you have no brain.”

    Well I don’t consider myself a conservative; just a grouchy centrist, but I like to think WC would approve.

  296. Wirth looks quite long in the tooth – perhaps it won’t be too long before he slides down to Hades/Sheol.

  297. I made no insults towards your host. I followed through with the logical conclusions of what he says in the above post.

  298. Mr. Sowell, the link you provided on petrified forests speaks of floods 200 million years ago. Because there were floods 200 million years ago, does this mean the climate was the same? The link also says Arizona, not New Mexico. I’m also curiuos how bridges ever stood before aspects of gravity were quantified. Did gravity act the same on bridges before man had somewhat precisely quantified it?

  299. sceptical said on June 27, 2011 at 4:37 am:

    I made no insults towards your host. I followed through with the logical conclusions of what he says in the above post.

    Your first post:

    sceptical says:
    June 25, 2011 at 5:37 am

    Seems your anger has gotten the better of you again Mr. Watts. Past weather events do not mean the climate is unchanging. To claim so is silly.

    Anthony Watts does not deny the existence of the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, the earlier Roman Warm Period, etc. He does not deny the previous periods of planetary glaciation. These are examples of historical climate change. Thus Anthony Watts has not denied that the climate changes. Further, in the above post he points out examples of historic weather events, primarily when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was at 350ppm in 1998, for comparison to current weather events at 390ppm. It is also not a denial that climate changes.

    Yet you have “logically” decided the above comparison has justified your insinuating that Anthony Watts has denied that climate changes, and that it was silly of him to do so, and have proceeded from there.

    Your second post:

    So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.

    Third post:

    Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make.

    Thus we see the progression of your “logic,” perhaps it should be called your “progressive logic.” Despite Anthony Watts having not denied that climate changes, you have concluded that he has done so, and now have “logically” decided that citing past and current weather events is denying that climate changes.

    Fourth post:

    Mr. Watts reasoning seems to be since there was a drought in the 1930′s no droughts can ever be do to a changing climate because no matter how the climate changes, the drought in the 30′s will still have existed. Silly reasoning.

    Basically the same. Because Anthony Watts cited a historical event, you conclude this means he has denied such individual events can be due to a changing climate because the historical event exists.

    But changes in climate are shown in changes in weather trends. Since individual events do not construe a trend, Anthony Watts is unable to point to any individual event as being caused by a change in climate, thus you have no point to make.

    Fifth post:

    Mr. Watts, do you really “know” that droughts floods and fires are just continuing along as always (the climate is not changing)? How do you “know” that weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed? Do you really “know” that past weather events prove these things?

    Now you’re gathering up your flawed conclusions and are shoving your words into Anthony Watts’ mouth.

    You’ve made up a bunch of illogical conclusions that do not follow from what Anthony Watts posted, proceeded as if he did believe in those conclusions, so you could call such reasoning, and thus Anthony Watts by extension, silly.

    It’s true you have not made direct insults against Anthony Watts, but you do have quite an insulting attitude towards our host, here in his “home on the internet.” For being so insulting towards our host, you deserve at least a strong verbal thrashing. Heck, a few hundred years ago or so Anthony would have been justified in having you flogged. Today in some parts of the world your boorish behavior would be grounds for having you killed, it may even be socially required of the host to do so, with appropriate amounts of torture included.

    While the potential punishments are not as severe on this site, it would still be in your best interest to have a more respectful tone towards our host and fellow guests and cease with your insulting shenanigans.

  300. kadaka, “But changes in climate are shown in changes in weather trends. Since individual events do not construe a trend, Anthony Watts is unable to point to any individual event as being caused by a change in climate, thus you have no point to make”

    This is exactly my point and the reason why it is silly to point to past weather events to say the current climate is not changing and certain trends are not taking place.

  301. From sceptical on June 27, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    This is exactly my point and the reason why it is silly to point to past weather events to say the current climate is not changing and certain trends are not taking place.

    So why don’t you just grow a pair and outright say that’s what Anthony Watts did, instead of resorting to all these weaselly innuendos?

    Besides, Wirth’s specific claims were of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”. With no conclusive evidence that has happened, and indeed there is evidence that they haven’t happened, what’s wrong with pointing out those “certain trends” are not taking place?

Comments are closed.