Top Ten Science Based Predictions that didn't come true.

Hi Anthony,
I am a meteorologist who works in Montana. I have read many newspaper articles reporting on Dr. Running’s presentations concerning climate change. He calculates temperature trends using raw data from airports, without correcting them for instrument changes, moves, and UHI. Last July was the warmest July in Montana since 1936, but he used it as proof of AGW. Nevermind that statistical tests fail show any significant trend. The current drought itself is proof of AGW. Nevermind that the drought in the 1930s was worse.
I wouldn’t let my children hear him speak at school, unless I am there to challenge the basis of his arguments.

The weather’s average has been going up and down in cycles since time immemorial. Environmentalists don’t want to show you that part. That’s why I think any “global warming” is happening naturally, with human input maybe as a catalyst just a bit in ultra-urban areas.

Q. What do the IPCC and the SS Titanic have in common ?
A. Skeptics and one Iceberg.

Everybody remembers Eisenhower’s warning about the, “military-industrial complex,” shoot, it has become the siren call of some.
Few if any recall — and it is never repeated — the second warning he made in that very same speech:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

The scientific-technological elite, Eisenhower truly was prescient. Read the speech, it could have been written today.
DKK

Interesting! Thanks for sharing 🙂

I’ve been debating a “gentleman” on another site regarding AGW.
I gave him Anthony’s site and summarized sum of the problems that have been found.
His response.
These guys are scientists.
Scientists would never let their data get as bad as the data I presented showed.
Scientists would have mechanisms in place to detect problems and correct them.
Therefore.
The problems that I mentioned were small and isolated.
The data from the sensor network was good, and has been properly analyzed.
If I disagree, I must be anti-science.

Your post is not about the failure of science, but rather about the ability of science to advance our understanding of the world.
There was no ice age coming in 1975, but from 1940 to 1975 the natural effects of changing solar radiation resulted in a relative modest cooling trend which served to offset the roughly equivalent temperature rise resulting from the anthropogenic production of CO2.
These natural insolation effects are what has controlled the natural variations in global climate ‘since time immemorial’ as your rather blinkered commenter above would have it.
The point is that the scale of such natural variation is not equal to the job any longer of masking the effects of increasing carbon dioxide within the atmosphere. This rise is not a cyclical process, it is a one-way journey which is accelerating. The CO2 content of the atmosphere on this planet has risen by well over 20% since 1958.
The Montana weather on its own can’t tell us very much about global warming. The extent and volume of Arctic sea ice is a much better indicator, since we can readily observe the effect of rising global temperature over a much wider area without dispute about urbanisation since there are no cities on the Arctic ice.
Which is just as well. Last year saw the record disappearance of Arctic sea ice. The summer extent of Arctic sea ice in September 2007 stood at 41% below the average summer minimum for the period from 1978-2000. A study based on data up to 2004 recently predicted that the Arctic would have no summer ice at all by 2013.
This is alarming but it is likely to occur even sooner. The 2007 minimum saw only 4.14 million km2 of summer sea ice remaining, against the 1978-2000 average of around 7 million km2 and was 1.19 million km2 (22%) below the previous record low of 5.3 million km2 which was only set in 2005.
The size of ice-free ocean which opened up between 2005 and 2007 was equivalent to the land area of Texas and California combined. Similar changes occurring within just the next three years would be enough to eradicate the ice cap by the end of summer altogether.
That’s no minor or local change. It’s when global warming becomes fact.

Roads,
How about Antarctic sea ice? And did you know that the recent melting of Arctic sea ice had very little, if anything, to do with ambient air temperature (which was still well below freezing, therefore how could it melt due to that?) and mostly to do with ocean and wind currents. Just ask NASA.
And of course now the Arctic ice is already back with a vengeance, causing major problems in many northern Canadian waterways.
Sorry, but you haven’t presented any facts. Only regurgitated alarmism based on half-truths.

Last year saw the record disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Roads, could you please clarify this statement. By “record”, do you mean since the beginning of satellite measurements in 1978, since the beginning of recorded history or since the earliest time that can be verified through temperature proxies?
And, if this really is a problem of epic proportions, what do you propose to do to reverse the trend?

Temperatures are being monitored in various locations around the world. I was listening to the radio one day and the subject was about where the monitoring stations were located. It sounded like a large number of the stations were located near large sources of heat, such as chimneys, factories, aircraft exhaust areas, and other places where the temperatures recorded may be effected by the locations. I suppose a government agency pays leases for these locations.
It would be interesting to find out who owns or sub-leased the properties, where these monitoring stations are located, and how much of the lease is being funneled to certain insiders who may not be as interested in temperature monitoring accuracy as, perhaps, ill-gotten-booty.

Roads said (07:19:44) :
“The Montana weather on its own can’t tell us very much about global warming. The extent and volume of Arctic sea ice is a much better indicator, since we can readily observe the effect of rising global temperature over a much wider area without dispute about urbanisation since there are no cities on the Arctic ice.”
1. Compare the number of surface stations in Montana, to the number of surface stations in the Arctic.
2. Explain how the “extrapolation” of surface temps can accurately tell me the temp of a place 1200km away (that’s like reading a thermometer in Omaha, and extrapolating the temp in Death Valley).
3. We keep hearing the arguement that local conditions are not a good proxy of global (the U.S. is only 2% of the earth’s surface.) How much area does the arctic ocean have, and how can that area be an accurate proxy for global?

Coz’
That very important work is being carried out by our intrepid host, Anthony Watts at http://www.surfacestations.com.
Check out his discoveries and the various causes of the placement problems.

Some classic partially-informed responses here. It’s unfortunate that some of your commenters are less than meticulously polite, but I’ll answer them one by one, just the same.
Jeff: Antarctic ice is increasing? Possibly – some reports suggest an increase of 0.8% per decade (against a decrease of 3% per decade in the Antarctic.
Other authors suggest that Antarctic ice has been reducing in recent years.
The jury’s still out on that one.
The melting point of (calm) seawater at normal marine salinity is -2C. There’s plenty of literature which suggests that temperature is the principal control on melting of Arctic ice. NASA are good at observing the globe from space, and the evidence they have collected provides much of the information base which serves to prove the impact of global warming.
Virgil: The disappearance of Arctic summer ice is not a one-off: it’s a steady decrease over several decades which is accelerating. As the map of Arctic summer sea ice quite clearly shows.
Meanwhile, Arctic winter ice formation happens every year and there was more open water area to re-freeze this year. Individual winters vary (as do summers – note it’s trends that we’re interested in) but I’m not aware of any information to suggest a systematic increase in Arctic winter ice over years or decades but if you have some then I’d be pleased to see it.
Stan: ‘define record’. Yes, I’m talking about the period since satellite measurements began. But, nevertheless, the scientific literature suggests that the Arctic ice cap has been permanent for 700,000 years. Its disappearance in summer is not a minor perturbation in our weather patters.
It’s also true to say that for long periods of geological time, for example during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, there were no polar ice caps at all on this planet. The drawback is that sea level was up to 200 m (660′) higher than it is today. Which is unfortunate if you live in New York, San Francisco or London. Or Paris. Or Miami. Or Sydney. Or Boston. Or Vancouver. Or Seattle. Or Shanghai. Or Hamburg …
Yes, it’s a problem of epic proportions. So what would I do to reverse the trend? Well, the likelihood is that this trend can’t be stopped completely within the short term, since the CO2 already released (remember that we are apparently intent on burning much of the carbon budget of the past 200 million years in Earth history within just a few decades) will continue to cause temperature rises for years to come. Nevertheless, every action we take to reduce our carbon consumption will have an effect in slowing those changes.
The technology in offshore wind and onshore solar power already exists to supply much of our energy needs without requiring recourse to nuclear energy. At home, we have been using electricity supplied by a wind power company since 2003 and at no extra cost. So you can switch today.
Transport is a harder problem to solve. Biomass offers a partial (but far from complete) solution and using diesel engines reduces carbon consumption by 30-40%.
Nevertheless, for some purposes (including aviation) it’s likely that we will continue to need to use hydrocarbons for some considerable time to come. We’ll need more fuel-efficient planes (like the A380) and we should use alternative surface transport for short haul where it’s practicable (as in Europe where we have the Eurostar and TGV network).
Although the operating cost of renewable energy technologies is extremely low, the upfront investment cost of building many large offshore wind farms and extensive onshore solar installations including coatings of our rooftops will be high, but the cost of carbon-based energy sources has risen 10-fold since 1998 and will continue to rise, bringing these alternatives into more economic reach.
Occams Edge: We’re not talking just a 26 year observation period – we’re discussing a disappearance of ice from the Arctic for the first time in 700,000 years. That’s not trivial.
I made no reference to the NorthWest passage. If you look at map of Arctic summer sea ice, you could see it as more or less navigable in 1978, when there was over 40% more summer sea ice than there is today. So I can’t see the relevance of that particular remark.
Sam: the increase in temperatures from 1910 to 1940 did not pre-date the anthropogenic release of CO2. That process started with the onset of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th Century, and the release of CO2 from anthropogenic sources has increased steadily since then. The faster rate of temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 was caused by a natural increase in insolation (see above – this then fell from around 1940 to 1975) added added to the anthropogenic CO2 effect.
The crux of the matter centres around the different timescale and magnitude of these processes within recent times.
The insolation effects (once dominant, prior to the Industrial Revolution) now increasingly manifest themselves on the global temperature curve as (relatively) low level ‘noise’, superimposed on the larger (and increasingly large) effect of rising anthropogenic CO2.
Imagine adding a low amplitude sinusoidal wave (representing the insolation effect) to a progressively steepening quadratic curve (recording the CO2 effect) and you will more or less exactly mirror the observed global temperature curve.
The corrugated (if still steepening) form of this composite curve also provides the explanation for why the observed rise in global temperature is neither precisely uniform nor perfectly described by comparison with the CO2 curve alone.
As noted by many global warming sceptics, at some times (1990s, 1900-1950) the observed rapid global temperature rise reflects a positive reinforcement of CO2 and insolation effects, whilst at others (from 1950-1975, for example, as discussed above) the insolation effect acts as a partial counterbalance to the CO2 rise and global temperature remains relatively static or may even fall slightly.
Nevertheless, the CO2 contribution is becoming increasingly strong over time, as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise and as this rise continues to accelerate. It’s worth reiterating again that global CO2 concentrations have risen by well over 20% since 1958 and are presently rising at >0.5% per year.
Please see this link for further details: Climate change in the public debate.
Cozumelkid: The effects of urbanisation (the so-called ‘heat island’ effect) are systematically removed from long-term climate analyses. Meteorologists and climatologists have thought of that one. And note that the Arctic Ocean is not close to any of these local sources – that’s a key point here.
Sorry for the long post, but it’s important that these issues are discussed in a less than flippant and bollocks-to-you kind of way.
Kind regards to all of you from London.

Some people have made decidedly ignorant responses to Anthony’s post. Roads, it doesn’t matter if one study says so about the ice if its not true:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/current_anom_south.jpg
But I see where you become confused, in that we are talking about two different things, ice area and sea ice volume, I believe it was.
Several of you seem to think that Anthony is trying to say that science is never right-hogwash, Anthony is saying that science can be wrong-Don’t take things on faith, duh!
Systematic removal of Urban Heat Island effect, eh? Not necessarily. Population data is used, but if a city’s population stays constant and its energy usage goes up, which is true of certain places, the heat island will still increase.
The other stuff you said, utter unintelligible religious nonsense about how CO2 evidently explains everything. No it doesn’t. It is not a god.
“The CO2 contribution has become increasingly strong” Well, sure, but is it big now, and is it more important than anything else? Maybe, maybe not, maybe it never will be. These are quantitative questions. Your response are so thoroughly qualitative that all I can say is they are “not even wrong” so to speak, so that I actually can’t discount what you say, only say that it is meaningless garbage without actual falsifiable numbers.
The data, incidentally, have certainly not been corrected for creeping microsite biases. Which is the whole point of the surfacestations.org project. Of course, certain scientismists posting here don’t seem to get that scientists are human beings, they are fallible, they can make mistakes and let errors creep into there data. And most importantly, like any human, when they screw up, they will reluctant to admit it. And they have been.

Incidentally, your comment that there haven’t been any trends in natural forcings is so patently and pathetically false its almost amusing. Solar activity, for one thing, is higher now than it was during the Maunder Minimum, for instance. Now you can argue that the effect is tiny. Fine, whatever. But if you argue it didn’t happen at all, you are a solar change denier.
The official position of the alarmists on the midcentury cool period is not natural forces masking CO2 but MANMADE particulate pollution masking CO2. Shame on you for not knowing the official explanation.
And on this “one way trend” we are going on that “exceeds” natural cycles: False. I was warmer during most of the previous interglacials in the last half million years, it was much warmer during the the first half of the Tertiary, the last half of the Cretaceous, the Jurassic, Triassic, end of the Permian, The first half of the Carboniferous, the Devonian, most of the Silurian, most of the Ordivician, and the Cambrian. We half well within the range of natural variation, thank you:
http://www.geocities.com/andrewwerdna28/Klimacht1_files/image002.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/andrewwerdna28/Klimacht1_files/image004.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/andrewwerdna28/Klimacht1_files/image006.jpg

I don’t belive in Dr. Marshall descovery

“‘Oh what about Antartica?’ is not an argument”
mryantho, They have presented “evidence” by showing that the Arctic is “melting” which is supposed to be consistent with their theory (actually, its “not inconsistent”). If that’s good evidence that global warming is happening and is all our fault and we are all going to die, then isn’t it okay to point out they are cherry picking, using evidence and ignoring contrary evidence? Oh, that’s right, its okay for them to ignore this becuase its irrelevant, becuase they are just “right”, and becuase its necessary to distort the truth to fight that category five denial! How is melting ice in the Artic evidence of global warming if Antartic ice freezing isn’t evidence against it? Hint: Neither is evidence of either hypothesis. This is all fluff to get foolish citizens like Roads to become Patagonian Sheep following the Great Shepherd Gore. The facts are important, it is not acceptable to distort them just becuase your hypothesis is “right”. Especially if its actually “wrong”. Quit adding epicycles.

mryantho makes a very similar argument to the one I was about to make. Thanks for saving me 5 minutes. In science it is always possible to poke holes in someone else’s research. This is because the nature of discovery forces every scientist to make judgments and choices. How should this be measured? How should this be calibrated? What does this result mean?
If you think global warming is not happening then fine. Stop for a second and allow yourself to be wrong. Everyone hopes you are right. Dont search for information that supports your preconceived opinion. Search for information from credible journals and seek to learn.
If you think global warming is real then fine (I am in this category). Stop for a second and allow yourself to be wrong. Again, dont search for information that supports your preconceived opinion. Search for information from credible journals and seek to learn.
One area where the two sides are not equal though is in effect. If global warming is happening then we must act now. If you have honestly sought out the information and you dont think GW is happening then dont just start chiding and using straw-man arguments against the other side. The only purpose in that is to make yourself look smart.

Regardless of the longterm reliability of current global warming science and theories (which I am skeptical of), isn’t it time we just said to ourselves, “We should be conservationists, with regards to everything?” Science is built to correct itself–that’s a good thing. This is what makes science fundamentally different from religion. But to live rationally, conserving what we value, moves beyond those houses of thought. Huxley was right: we are inevitably sliding towards the society suggested in A Brave New World (see A Brave New World Revisited), and so often we say “Ending is better than mending”, but rationale man says that’s a lot of bunk.

Andrew
Your article by ‘JunkScience’ is aptly named. The author knows less than solar irradiance than he would have you believe, I’d venture. Not least because he can’t spell the word correctly, he’s that well-versed in the subject.
There’s a much more complete version of the solar radiation curve in this link.
You misread much of what I said above. I didn’t say any of the following:
1) ‘there are no cycles in solar insolation.’ In fact, I said the precise opposite. There’s no point in calling me a solar change denier. I’m not. What I said that adding solar influences to anthropogenic carbon dioxide influences provides a near-perfect match for the observed global temperature curve. That’s entirely true.
2) ‘there is a one-way trend in temperature’. I said there was currently a one-way trend in carbon dioxide production and hence in global CO2 levels. .
3) ‘it’s never been warmer in the geological past.’ That’s not true, and I didn’t say it. It was warmer than today in each of those periods, but the point I made was that there was no ice on the planet then. Sea level was 200m higher than today for much of that time. That’s the point here.
It’s interesting that you seem intent on being so extremely rude. Good luck with that approach, since it cuts no ice with me.
2)

yes this is just propaganda in a moderate disguise, take your 5th century ideals elsewhere.

If you choose to disbelieve scientific consensus, I will grant you that you have a right to do so. Since I am not a climatologist, I readily concede that my understanding of the issue is not as great as IPCC members. However, when a group of thousands of scientists all come to the same conclusion, it behooves you to accept this as reasonably true. If you choose not to do this, you have an ethical obligation to put your money where your mouth is.
In short, if you choose to continue to support politicians who do not believe in AGW, and if you choose to ignore the advice of people who have spent the vast majority of their lives studying the subject, you should also be prepared to bear the brunt of the consequences. Why shouldn’t you be? You don’t believe that they will occur, do you?
So sign yourself up on a list of people who are willing to give up their homes and their jobs to Bangladeshis who won’t have either in 25 years if the climate scientists are correct. Sign off now on an immigration policy that allows millions of refugees into the country if the waters start rising. Author legal agreements that transfer your retirement funds into relief efforts if the worst comes to pass.
Put your self-interest on the line, instead of merely sneering at people who dedicate their lives to advancing human knowledge. C’mon, what are you waiting for? It’s not going to happen anyway, right?

You missed one of the top 10. Growing up, my father, a physicist and engineer, showed me one of his textbooks from college in the early 1950s showing demonstrably that flight beyond the speed of sound was physically impossible. There it was, all the calculations, drawings, explanations, etc. Wish he had given me that textbook…

ps before anybody offers a smarmy remark that the barrier was broken before the 1950s, he was in college in the early 1950s…the textbook was published well before Yeager made his famous flight…

Many that are so gullible as to not see the political push of all this nonsense are forgetting an inconvenient truth. The Truth is that all this political garbage about manmade global warming has caused great harm to everyone and mostly the poor. One of you actually had the stupidity of saying that “If we chose to believe in AGW we have lost nothing even if it is false, and we lose everything if it is true.” To the morons who suggested this, are you not paying attention? Considering our need for energy independence (remember $100 oil that does nothing but line the pockets of other extremists), we are facing a time when all the environmental extremist activities of the past are coming home to roost. Thanks to these environmental extremist who have hide in the guise of science, we haven’t kept up with the need for more Oil Drilling, Coal Power plants, or nuclear power. These extremist are even so stupid as to attack our damns which, next to nuclear power, is the cleanest form of energy we produce. It is obviouse that nothing will satisfy these extremist, and even if they come up with a good idea themselves, give them a few years and they will be against that also.
So in summary, anyone who doesn’t see environmental extremism as the bigger threat is either gullible or just too biased to see the forest for the trees!

This should remind us of the importance of observations made by capable naturalists over time. Biological systems are fine-tuned to perturbations occurring at scales that make microsite variability meaningless.
Changing distribution ranges, both in elevation and latitude, the timing of migratory behavior, and local extinctions are all the data needed to see things are moving fast.
Then throw in sinking railroads in the permafrost, anxious Inuits and Tuvians, and regional/global agricultural crises/opportunities (we’re biological too), and the situation seems evident.
Thermometers…we don’t need no stinkin’ thermometers!
Jd
REPLY: Hmm, care to revise that John? It doesn’t fit with previous statements you’ve made to me. Maybe you really don’t mean that we should throw out the metric for measurement of our atmospheric temperature? And microsite variability does it fact get recorded by such thermometers. See my post on moves related to San Francisco’s official climate station for an illustrated proof.

Roads, I am rude, too bad. Second, I didn’t like to an article at all. Just an image. But I’m glad to see you aren’t a solar change denier.
environmentalchristian, appreciate the rationalism, at least. I would like to correct you on one point. No one seriously thinks it isn’t warmer now than say a hundred or so years ago, that I know of. No one really thinks there isn’t any global warming. We are not denying any recent warming. Only the amount and the causes.
What thousands of scientists padraic2112? If your talking about the oft quoted 2500, no one to my knowledge has actually seen the list of names. After all, if a skeptic produces a list, people pick it apart and find as many sociologists and economists as they can. But a quick analysis of the IPCC finds many “unqualified” people. And as we have seen, just becuase people devote their “lives” to something doesn’t mean they’ve got it right. We’ve been obsessing over global warming for all of Twenty years. I know your going to say “the theory has been worked out for hundreds of years” and yet we still don’t even have a ballpark estimate of the effect of aerosols, which would be necessary to determine how much warming is due to CO2. The simple “all” explanation is flaw becuase: Some global warming should be due to solar activity, and less warming may have happened than the CO2 alone would suggest. It could be better, it could be worse:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/pictures/climate/IPCC-Forcings.png
(Not an “article” an image)
Note also: “Level of Scientific Understanding” for most forcings is “Low” to “Very Low”. How does that correspond to 90% certainty?
Jeff, GISS says 2nd warmest on record. RSS says 9th. Get over that.
On fitting the models to history, which I believe Roads brought up. If you make assumptions about certain effects, and they happen to reproduce history, does that mean they are right? How do models vary from 1.5 to 4 in their climate sensitivities and all match history? Because the value for aerosols was chosen, not derived from first principles, to fit.

Science is nothing but of discovering new things.
Sometimes it can be very wrongly interpreted.
One must have humility as a scientist,
not aggressiveness of intellect and to portray himself a semigod!
The other day I read this article by this young dude.
About People who deny existence of God.
He had something similar resonating on scientists who think they know-it-all!
It can be read here: People who deny existence of God!

Also, since the subject is science-based predicitons; perhaps the biggest problem is that people tend to think it’s either anthropogenic, or a natural cycle.
Yes, the earth climate obviously cycles and the sun has a lot to do with it; and yes, there’s every reason to expect CO2 increases affect the earth’s climate. Yes, CO2 levels have cycled the past as well.
Nothing new under the sun…or is there? Think twice, this combination of factors has never before occurred in the history of the earth. 350 million years of carbon have never before been kicked into the atmosphere before. We’re like a bunch of smoldering volcanos that won’t quit; and that’s not to mention all the other things (deforestation, land-cover conversion, soot deposits, etc.). These are brand new conditions…it’s a brave new world folks!
Nothing in nature happens in isolation. It’s not one or the other…and what should be more of concern is the great possibility that it’s actually going to be more than just the two combined. That’s the way complex natural phenomena tend to occur.
Being a scientist, what frightens me is the tendancy to see so many people to form such strong opinions and take such marked sides with so little information. And as indicated by Anthony’s good work, we can’t even get the thermometers right?
If there is hope, perhaps it’s in the realization that scientists often act like arguing children, and mother nature won’t take sides.
jD

Sure I’ll revise.
I didn’t mean to demean the metric of measurement. I’m just saying we’d all benefit if all broadened our views.
The Sierra Madre quote was just an attempt at humor.
I always look forward to seeing your Blogg Anthony. Work by folks like you stimulates discussions like these.
Thanks!

papertiger, ever think of making a blog about that idea?
The cheap, easy solution to global warming: The satellite space mirror!
You could make huge money off it. At least until it got hit by an asteroid or something and either shattered or turned around and reflected light back at us. Didn’t you watch the whole Futurama episode?

joyce
Noone is arguing about doing our part for the environment. What we are against are extemists who use the environment for politcal power. They inturn ruin sciense and actually set us back. There is “ZERO” scientific evidence of AGW. While we can measure “Forcing” for various properties of compounds such as CO2, there is simply no way to calculate all the other forcing when it comes to our climate, that includes warming itself.
Facts:
1. AGW is not proven nor is it truely even rational. (It is still politically driven just as when it started)
2. CO2 is not a pollutant no matter what some political environmental court may tell us.
3. Al Gore’s move has been repremanded by a British court as too be exagerated (extremist) yet it is force feed to our kids. (How is that for harm?)
4. Environmental extremism has caused us to not only fall behind in our need for energy independence, but it is has helped to line the pockets of other extremist groups.
5. Many third world countries have millions of children dieing because they are not afforded the same opportunities that these extremist environmentalist themselves enjoy such running water and electricity.
Don’t be fooled. Todays environmentalist are not only wrong, they are dangerous…

messagero, all these scientists seemed a hundred percent sure. “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” Lord Kelvin was often wrong, a victim of the limit understand available to him, and yet he always seemed so sure. Would you interpret that statement as something other than 100% certainty? And what about the “scientists” who are 90% sure that there is catastrophic man-made global warming, when It seems to be quite easy to show that you can’t be sure how much it has warmed already? Anthony understands science perfectly well. He understands that science self corrects, and he is attempting to be part of what could prove to be a major self correction. Someday, even his enemies will admit that Anthony raised good points, and that they would have been better to accept them and work from them, rather than act as though they don’t matter.

Anthony wrote:
“So the next time you hear about worldwide crop failure, rising sea levels, species extinction, or “climate grief” you might want to remember that just being an expert, or even having a consensus of experts, doesn’t necessarily mean that a claim is true.”
Sure, but nearly all your examples- with the exception perhaps of the stomach ulcers and the fixity of the earth’s crust- are of individual scientists giving their private opinions, and not representative of the scientific consensus as a whole. One of them- the Duesberg HIV quote- was given by a crackpot who to this day thinks that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
REPLY: Ok, fair enough, I could just as easily modify the list to include these:
“The ‘sound barrier’ can’t be broken”
Eugenics – nuff said
The Population Bomb
Mutated frogs – “a sign of our polluted environment – the indicator of trouble” turned out to be a parasite called Ribeiroia
This article in Scientific American says it pretty well. The science went nutty at first, mostly driven by environmental fear, then it “self corrected”.

Actually, myrmecos, the parallels with continental drift are especially striking, for you see, Mr Wegener was also a meteorologist. And what’s more, he came from out of his field! Take that everyone who says non-climate scientists can’t comment!

Evan,
Well then, as they say “great minds think alike”. 😉
But I’ll have to give credit to you sir, because that is where I saw it. It just seemed more applicable here.

I totally agree with this post. There is so much alarmist thinking out there. People just need to calm down, and look at the facts.

Hi,
Great post!
The media love scary predictions and repeatedly instigate these ‘moral panics’. Global warming, Muslims, Hoodies (kids in hooded tops)… the list goes on.
However, I feel its messages are more difficult to negotiate when it is reporting scientific research. I find it useful to remember:
Research is funded by someone, often with an agenda.
News channels are similarily funded, by people who most definitely have agendas.
And on global warming, we could dispute this and agree with that. However, to ignore a large number of eminent scientists on either side of the debate is foolish.
Europe’s worry is that the US view is coloured primarily by economic concerns and its administration will protect business first. And business pays for science.
Predictions, Predictions, Predictions! I’m compiling some for the future of the Web at http://ellismark.wordpress.com/ Come and have a go!

Still, I think it’d be better if we actually concern ourselves with scientific predictions like global warming etc, so that we would try to be more responsible to the environment, to ourselves. To think, scientific predictions are usually reliable and rational. Remember that there were still thousands of other scientific projections that actually came true as expected. And who knows? Those global warming stuff might actually come true, and you wouldn’t want that. Just a reminder.

Roads said-
“At home, we have been using electricity supplied by a wind power company since 2003 and at no extra cost. So you can switch today.”
Really? You have a direct power connection between your home and the wind farm? Meaning you live next to, or inside, a wind farm facility? Or, you have a third-party-owned wind turbine on your property that supplies your power? Or, you have a power company that is completely isolated from the rest of the power grid, and only has wind generation, with no spinning reserves and no storage, so calm days mean blackouts? Neato!
I suspect rather that you believe you are receiving “pure wind energy” from your local power distribution company because you checked a box on your electric bill. Power companies do not have the ability to route wind energy (or energy from any particular power generation source) through the distribution grid to your house. What you have succeeded to do is, well, check a box. Whilst it doesn’t achieve anything but give you a warm inner glow, consider yourself lucky that your power company didn’t charge you an extra fee each month for checking the box, like many distco’s in the U.S. are doing.

And for any of you, regardless of what side you are on, to be so damn sure that you are RIGHT is your critical error. The question you should be asking yourself is not “how can I prove to everybody that I am right?” The question you ask yourself should be “how can I come to understand this question better and promote understanding of this question among others?” This involves a whole lot more asking than telling.

I’m not so damn sure that I’m right, but the alarmists damn sure think that they’re right. My position is that all we’ve done is gotten better at measuring things (in some cases) and become more aware of our surroundings. As a result, any little perturbation “alarms” some of us.
The so-called Ozone hole is a perfect example. There is absolutely zero evidence that the “hole” was never there. It was discovered in the 1950’s, and wasn’t alarming to anyone then, becuase there was no evidence that it was anything but natural. Even now after the banning of CFCs 30 odd years ago the hole is still there, hasn’t had any real net change in over 50 years.
Every little change is shown as “evidence” of human-induced climate change without without any legitimate causal factor. As a result we hear such rubbish as sea levels rising 30 meters in 50 years, thousands of species going extinct every year (though no one can name them), islands being gobbled up due to sea-level rise right now (when actually it’s due to tectonic subduction or erosion due to locals destroying the protective reefs), every glacier receding (when in reality only a moderate percentage of examined glaciers are actually receding, and less to do with temperature than precipitation), etc, ad nauseum.
So yes, it’s fair to “whine” about antarctic sea ice being at a record maximum when alarmist like to ONLY point out arctic sea ice being at a record minimum. After all we’re talking about “global” warming, aren’t we? Should all places be warming? If it were, then neither pole should be able to reach a record maximum in sea ice.
Anyway, I don’t see anything alarming here, I see a slow, steady trend that’s most likely been going on for thousands of years, up and down.
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

Andrew,
“the PDO has never before influenced Alaskan climate” is not at all what I wrote. You might want to look at that again.
What I tried to write was:
1) the PDO is acting on a moving target. 2) The target has never before been in this “position”, (a condition owing to our purturbations). 3) Interpreting natural phenomena and making predictions based on limited information is tricky. 4) Complex phenomena are unpredictable and most often non-linear (we’re generally surprised), 5) Interpreting complex phenomoena should never over-emphasize a single cause (like the AGW-Solar argument). and 6) People need some humility and stop acting like self-centered children.
I welcome alternative views on any one of these points.
Since tee-totalors cannot know, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is a really good beer. Hmmm. I’ll drink a cold one for you.
Jd

Nice to “meet you” Andrew!
I’d like to see Alaska someday.
Best regards.
Jd

but the point I made was that there was no ice on the planet then.

It’s not even possible to know that.

Paminator:
You asked for details on how offshore wind energy supply works, and I’m happy to assist.
In fact you can buy your own domestic wind turbine from our largest hardware supplier in any town for £1,498 each, but I haven’t got my own just yet. The prices are coming down, and the designs are improving so that this is rapidly becoming a much more cost-effective proposition.
In the meantime, I buy my renewable electricity from my power company, and it works like this. For every unit of electricity that I use, the power company purchases one unit of its electricity from offshore windfarms around the UK.
Wind energy is a fantastic energy resource in this country. We have a very extensive area of continental shelf which lies beyond the sight of land, and we have the offshore technology from our North Sea oil and gas industries to exploit it. And, most importantly, we have a lot of wind.
You could argue that wind energy doesn’t provide power when the wind is not blowing, but you only have to go down to a beach on the western coasts of our islands to know that this is hardly ever true.
Our islands stretch 1,000 km from north to south, so that on the extremely rare occasions when we have dead calm conditions in one area of sea around our coast, the wind is still blowing somewhere else. Those windless periods can be accurately forecast these days, and the energy companies plan for them, and on the very few dead calm days we have, they turn up the gas turbines in our conventional power stations. The reaction time to increase the power on demand in this way is very swift, so there is little redundancy required within the system.
Overall, the result is that whilst the wind around our coasts is not 100% reliable, the application of wind farms serves to reduce our conventional hydrocarbon-based energy usage in this country significantly.
We are already supplying more than 2% of our energy needs in this country from renewable sources. That doesn’t sound like much, but it’s over 1 million homes. At that figure, we lag far behind Denmark, Germany and Spain. The former produces 11% of her energy from renewable sources (mostly wind – like the UK, Denmark is a very windy place).
Denmark has placed itself firmly at the forefront of wind energy technology. The investment made into research and development has paid off in economic terms – they are leading suppliers of such installations across the world. The design and manufacturing of turbines, components and tieback engineering provides many jobs across what is a rapidly expanding industry there.
As is often the case, early adopters and investors in new technology are able to build a technological lead which is capable of catalysing the development and massive growth of a nationally-important industry (look at how Eriksson and Nokia built huge telecommunications industries in Sweden and Finland respectively).
The EU has set a target that 20% of energy supply should be provided from renewable sources by 2020 and this looks achievable. The rising price of oil and gas means that the economics have dramatically improved. The price of oil and gas is certain to increase in the longer term as supplies are used up and this equation will continue to improve. As we build more offshore wind farms across a range of locations, the reliability of the supply also continues to increase.
The net result is that by ‘ticking that box’ as you put it, the domestic electricity we have used in our house is over the past five years, whilst not perfectly carbon neutral, is certainly not all that far away. That’s one small change, by one family, but it’s far from insignificant and such actions do add up.
You say that all of this ‘doesn’t achieve anything’, but that’s really not the case.

Hmmm. I thought that one addressed a Lt. Cdr. as Cdr. Please clarify.
Come to think of it, Evan, you may be right. You would certainly be correct if you were speaking directly to me. I’m not really sure what the rule is in addressing a LCDR in writing. After all, I did retire 18 years ago, so I don’t get addressed by rank much any more.
BTW, lest you think I’m ragging on you, I’m not, and I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to this blog.

Since there appears to be another Jeff who is calling people bozos, I’ll go by “Jeff in Seattle” instead.

So sign yourself up on a list of people who are willing to give up their homes and their jobs to Bangladeshis who won’t have either in 25 years if the climate scientists are correct. Sign off now on an immigration policy that allows millions of refugees into the country if the waters start rising. Author legal agreements that transfer your retirement funds into relief efforts if the worst comes to pass.
Put your self-interest on the line, instead of merely sneering at people who dedicate their lives to advancing human knowledge. C’mon, what are you waiting for? It’s not going to happen anyway, right?

Likewise, why don’t you since you believe it WILL happen. Anyway Bangladesh has always been prone to disaster, after all, we seem to have a telethon or concert for them every decade for the last 40 years at least.
Personally I don’t believe in passing laws for things that aren’t likely to happen.

Andrew
I’ve no idea where you get those numbers. Maybe Harlan Watson wrote them for you. It sounds like lobby group fodder, anyway.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that signing up to Kyoto causes economic hardship, either.
As the only notable non-signatory, the US currently has a basket case of an economy and the dollar has been busy going down the toilet for quite some time.
The greenback is currently gurgling just above the u-bend and let’s hope for all our sakes that you escape the final flush. But it looks like a close-run thing.
You bleat on and on about your energy security, instigating a Middle East bloodbath in the attempt to correct that. You constantly bemoan the high price of your gasoline yet insist on driving your monstrous monster trucks which only serve to make that problem worse.
Meanwhile your banks and financial institutions are desperately selling themselves to foreign investors in the Far East and (shock, horror) islamic states.
You close your eyes to the blindingly obvious and serious threats to our environment, and hold up your hands behind a mountain of playground bully tactoics and ‘Hey, it isn’t us’ excuses.
Time to wake up, buster. Because if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And frankly, a world majority would probably say right now that you are the problem.
The European economy is far from perfect, I’ll concede, but the evidence that your mindlessly irresponsible Kyoto stance has assisted the American people’s prosperity simply does not exist.
Unfortunately, there’s more. Since the kind of blinkered, arrogant and frankly objectionable comments you have made above seem rather to typify the approach of US policy makers to a range of important international problems.”Yeah, so we’re rude and aggressive, but put up with it,” to paraphrase your golden prose above.
The short-sighted and narrowly self-interested agendas adopted by Washington in recent years have greatly endangered the standing and perception of America abroad. That’s regrettable for all of us.
Remember that here in the UK we are your greatest allies and admirers.
When even your good friends are telling you that you’re way out of line, it’s more than high time to look closely at what you’re doing.
Kyoto destroying national economies? Don’t make me laugh.

Sorry, but you folks who say we have to “do something” even if we’re wrong about CO2 are hypocrites, because you’re not doing the one thing that would make any sort of difference, giving up a technological lifestyle. Every peck of the keyboard means you’re part of the “problem”, regardless of where you get your power (how do those windfarms get manufactured and repaired anyway? Through the oil infrastructure.)

Joyce,
“Logic” and “facts” were used similarly, and successfully by “scientists” in the tobacco industry for many decades. I envy anyone with such confidence concerning “Facts” relating to exceedingly complex natural phenomena. It sure must be nice; call me insecure.
Also, there has not been a more economically and politically-convenient label than “Environmentalist” since perhaps, “Pinko-Commies”, in the opinion of this humble scientist. The label might even, perhaps, prove useful for another 50 years or so.
People should be wary of such confidence; on either side of the long-term climate debate. My mind is open, as it should be (although evidence appears real and alarming).
It’s too early in the game to make a conclusion one way or the other, as so many Blogg contributers obviously have already done. That’s not how science and reasoning are supposed to work. The stakes are pretty high now, and it’s pretty early in the game for all of our armchair opinions to be taken too seriously.
Sincerely hopeful to be eating crow (which I’ve had to do before),
Jd

Jay from Seattle,
What exactly are you referring to regarding DDT?
Being a biologist, I’m just a little curious about what exactly you’re referring to.
Jd

Andrew,
You could make huge money off it. At least until it got hit by an asteroid or something and either shattered or turned around and reflected light back at us. Didn’t you watch the whole Futurama episode?
No, I never watch futurama. I think of a reason why we would make an accluding satellite out of glass. Silicone is heavy and we need it parked well away from Earth.
I envision something like a beach ball, possibly made out of mylar or carbon fibre. During transport it would be folded up like any hot air balloon. Once it reaches orbit then it could be inflated by remote control. It wouldn’t reflect sunlight back at Earth in any circumstance, asteroid collision, meteor strike, (springs a leak?) because it is situated between the sun and us. The most it could do is scatter sunlight away from us.
AGW is the postulate that we can control the weather on the warm side. Seems far fetched, but we can’t really tell. Best we can say is maybe.
Anthropogenic global cooling however is within our reach. Easily attainable. Several methods are feasible. Sprinkling the atmosphere with aerosol is the most discussed method. I don’t like it because we have no direct control. Once it’s done we live with the result, good or bad.
Satellite eclipse however is totally reversable. If it goes south – the Potomac and the Thames start icing over – we just send a command from Houston for the ParaSol to change orbit.
Affordable , controllable, and the tech is already proven.

environmentalchristian ,
I think you should follow your own advice. If you truely have studied both sides of the issue (I doubt it), then there is no way you could have come to any other conclusion than that it is politically driven nonsense.
Frankly, most environmentalist don’t even care if it is true. That is not their main goal anyway. Don’t be so niave. Hell, most of the environmentalist don’t even really understand what the so called greenhouse affect is or how it works. Think for a second about how ridiculous it is to calculate CO2 change as to a measure to any real climate change. Think about how the weather/temperature changes on any given day or hour for that matter. How does it change? What causes it to change? To what degree does it change? What does the IPCC, which is a governmental organization, say is their most extreme said outcome in temperature change? What “forcings” do they use to come to their conclusions? Do you see any problems with the “Forcings” they chose? Why would they only chose to
Wait a second. I should stop here for a second because I realize what I am writing is not going to change any minds. Lets go a different direction. Environmentalchristian, since you have studied both sides of the issue, how about you explain to everyone here (In laymans terms) how the greenhouse affect works? This should be good.

I’ve driven by wind farms in Southern California a couple times in the last 5 years, on the edge of the Mojave desert. Each time I’d say fewer than 5% of the turbines were turning. I don’t call that reliable. Similarly other smaller groups of wind turbines I’ve seen either never turn, or only one or two in the group ever move. Surely that can’t be because they provide so much power they’re hardly needed.
As for solar, I’d love to use it, but the angle of the sun’s rays here in Western Washington don’ provide good solar power. That and the overcast conditions we tend to have from fall through spring would also be disastrous during the time when power is needed most.

Roads, one, I never said it was hurting any economies. And if it isn’t that’s becuase almost no one is meeting there set goals. Second, those numbers are FACT. Get over it. The situation in the economy of the US has nothing to do with Kyoto. Sometimes economies do well, sometimes they don’t, for a variety of reasons.
“Not part of the solution” very well, happily part of the “problem”. No big deal, I’m healthy for not panicking. Let worrying destroy you. I won’t worry myself into the ground.

Paper tiger… you said – “AGW is the postulate that we can control the weather on the warm side. Seems far fetched, but we can’t really tell. Best we can say is maybe. Anthropogenic global cooling however is within our reach. Easily attainable. Several methods are feasible. Sprinkling the atmosphere with aerosol is the most discussed method. I don’t like it because we have no direct control. Once it’s done we live with the result, good or bad. Satellite eclipse however is totally reversable. If it goes south – the Potomac and the Thames start icing over – we just send a command from Houston for the ParaSol to change orbit.
Affordable , controllable, and the tech is already proven.”
Wow, scary stuff because one can see you aren’t ‘kidding’. Your final statement contradicts your previous paragraph – ie. CONTROLLABLE vs NON-CONTROLLABLE. Frankly, I’m not really very interested in you or your ‘god-lite’ types tampering with the skies … thank you very much. Go play tackle football or something and get all that ‘controlling stuff’ out of your system.
What is becoming apparent here is that any ‘change’ will be at the behest of the government of the day knee-jerking to the winds of the marketplace. ‘We’, the little people, are somewhat at their ‘mercy’. New technologies can only reach ‘the masses’ through efficient economies of scale. Those ‘scales’ take money and will. It is galling how ‘First World’ countries continue to pillage and rape the earth for oil. It is such backward outdated thinking that continues to aggravate this apparent ‘crisis’ . As long as Americans support a government in bed with the billion dollar oil/gas industries and vica versa, kiss innovative and necessary enivornmentally initiatives good bye. There just cannot be any significant change until those dinosaurs are voted or vetoed out of office. Exxon et al will not go ‘down’ without a fight. It is in their best interests to defy, denounce, destroy and deny ‘the obvious’. To be sure, rapid ‘extremism’ on either side serves no long term purpose. But the issue remains, who CONTROLS the ENERGY?

John D,
Here’s another exciting breakthrough in solar technology.

Printed like a newspaper directly on to aluminium foil, they are flexible, light and, if you believe the company, expected to make it as cheap to produce electricity from sunlight as from coal.

There is just a whole lot of cool stuff coming down the alternative energy pike right now.

Anthony,
I looked at that 40% solar efficiency link you provided. That’s a good note-and-graphic of the technological progress.
You answered the question before I asked….that’s pretty darn good!
Thanks.
Jd

When I was readying Evan Jone’s last comments, I at first thought it was funny until I realized he/she is actually serious. I think we have a true believer on our hands. No point in trying to reason with these likes. Anyone who would equate drilling for a resource as raping and pillaging is probably too far gone to bring back to sanity.
More important than trying to win a debate with such zealots is to simply continuing to point out the dangers of environmental extremism. We have to get past debating a trace gas such as CO2 because that only furthers their cause.
Here is something else that everyone might find interesting (I have been studying this line of thinking when it comes to climate change and this not only seems reasonable, but unlike CO2 “XBox” modeling, much of the science actually seems to actually lines up.):
1. http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4
2. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/08/25/russian_scientist_predicts_global_cooling/7556/
By the way John, you are welcome.

Jeff in seattle & Evan Jones:
Gentlemen, thanks for your ‘remarks’. Jeff, please consider my previous posts before you ‘jump the gun’, and Evan, tongue-in-cheek only works if your attempt at ‘sarcasm’ & ‘irony’ is accurate. It ain’t.
For the rest, the oil oligarchy DOMINATES, and until we can disengage ourselves from these planet-sucking behemoths, we are as much of ‘the problem’ as we are ‘the solution’. Consider:: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/wbh_exxart.htm. This site is an indepth analysis of the Exxon oil spill legal ‘stalling tactics’…fifteen years after the fact. UNDERSTAND who and what we’re up against here.
Alternatively, consider this: ‘BAE reaches $12.7 billion jet deal with Saudi Arabia. – A record $12.7 billion export agreement for the Euro-fighter Typhoon Combat Jet has given a boost to Britain’s defence industry sending shares of BAE SYSTEMS PLC soaring yesterday. Saudi Arabia said late on Thursday it will take up to 72 jets from the multi-national Euro-fighter consortium which includes Airbus parent firm EAD SNV and ALENIA AERONAUTICA, and part of Italy’s FINMECCANICA SpA. Britain and Saudi Arabia agreed for the Gulf State to purchase the planes after signing an original deal in December of 2005. In single day trading, BA (London) rose from 9.5 pence to 369.5 pence.’ Reuters, 2007 .
Think about this, the Greed behind it, the WIll for Power, and the ramifications, short and long term. Ethics are an intergral part of HOW we live our lives. We CHOOSE.

Canadada, no one wants to use oil forever. Actually, we know that we logically can’t. But it is funny you mention CHOOSING to do things or not. You know, maybe you should tell that to the socialists who think that this whole thing is the way to get government control over industry and peoples lives? Just a thought. After all, big brother is coming for your thermostat in California, they’ve taken my light bulb, and they are going to make us ride lighter, death trap cars. I can CHOOSE to be harmful to the environment, afterall, so the only logical way to protect the environment from me is to take away my right to make that CHOICE.

Jay, Evan’s dissertation was totally tongue in cheek, as I understood it.

Hey Canadada,
You’re onto the gist of the matter as far as this Yank goes. Two of the most ominous things spoken by our leaders are “Beware the Military Industrial Complex”, and “I’m the Decider”. They are related; go figure. That and “Eliminating Evil from the Earth”…and…well, It all kinda starts making disconcerting sense.
And Andrew; you’re statement exemplifies the conundrum perfectly. Free Will works in the long-run only with lots of responsibility and self-control, which doesn’t seem to be the case with humanity in general and the U.S. in particular.
Free will should not translate to, “I can ruin it if I want to”. The world has rapidly become a shrinking place, and that kind of short-sighted selfishnes applied to the global landscape is nothing but self destructive.
It’s the same as the timber industry cutting down all but 10% of old-growth, refusing to downsize mills to reajust production, shipping milling overseas, and then blaming owls and environmentalists for a flagging old-growth timber economy. Or perhaps the California Sardine fleet arguing with the scientists of the time (undoubtedly they would have been labeled “environmentalist” had the word been invented), while the fishermen completely eliminated the source of their own income (same thing happened to the Cod Fishery and now the Swordfish fishery, and…). Pretty sad really. The list can be constructed.
So while I will never go live in a cave, and I enjoy midnight reading, e-mail, my pickup and cold beer, I’ll be darned to suggest that if left to the free-will of each individual, we’ll have the wisdom to make the whole thing work. History says very differently. No laws or regulations are needed! ahhh, yahh. Are you suggesting otherwise?
The most vigorous, fastest growing, independent, self-determined cell in the entire human body is a cancer cell. Indeed, this beauty of freedom, and self-determination works and expresses itself without regard for larger relationships (it seems to have forgotten something). By ignoring it’s role in the entire system and looking out only for itself and its own kind, it usurpes the energy and materials required by the entire system; it also short-circuits “natural” energy pathways, creating toxins for the larger body as a result. Importantly too, it spreads its ethos to organs/cells elsewhere in the system, making them behave its way. And most importanty, in the end, it’s offspring completely ruin the system that created and supported it. A cancer cell ignores the code of larger conduct. It does really well for itself though, for a while at least. The analogy just might work.
Ahh, free-will…
And for anyone who completely writes off “environmentalism” as fringe lunacy, I suggest spending a few years in a country that “benefitted” from industrial development without those pesky environmental laws/regulations. Bet you won’t last too long!
If you believe it’s important to clean up after your dog if it “accidented” in your living room, maybe you’re an environmentalist too! Everything beyond that might just be a level of understanding.
In the words of Ishi (“The Last California Indian”), “You seek the knowledge of Gods, but have the wisdom of little children.”
Jd

Joe,
I should have clearified measuring “Forcing” for compounds such as CO2. By measuring “Forcing” of CO2, I meant that we could measure the light absorbtion properties of CO2 or any other compound/gas. Here is kind of an example: http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
Sorry for the confussion.

Canadada, What I said had nothing to do with rolling blackouts. If you didn’t understand the rest of my post, your didn’t understand any of it. The “mythical band of socialists” is very real, however:
http://nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/08/news/top_stories/1_02_261_7_08.txt
They want to control your thermostat.
You know, Roads certainly doesn’t seem to think so mythical band of Oil Barons and Wall Street Traders is keeping him from switching to wind power. What could be the reason for that?
But your gone now, so who cares.

Canadadadada, when did I insult anyone?
All I said was that if you really believe that Human industrial activity is going to destroy us all, then you are part of the problem by continuing to utilize the evil military industrial complex. Biting the hand that feeds, clothes, and heals you isn’t a good idea, really. I merely said that you must not really believe it since you haven’t given up your industrial ways.
As for environmentalism, yes there are a lot of extremists out there who simply make stuff up to further their agenda. Like the whole DDT scam, GM foods, CO2, etc. Even one of the founders of Greenpeace left because they had gone way off message. Many of the founders of these other movements have stated publicly that the death of the human race is the only solution. Yet you don’t see them volunteering to go first. Therefore they’re all hypocrites, and you appear to be one too. If that’s an insult, so be it, prove me wrong.

Ok, I’ll take the bait …
Andrew, aka ‘timetochooseagain’, and Scott. Please excuse my stupidity and ignorance. We simple minds have trouble interpreting inventive grammar, poor syntax, and self-righteous inflammatory ‘arguments’ … Lets try again, for clarity and mutual Self-improvement, ok?
1. An oil oligarchy dominates the energy ‘business’. Agreed?
2. Alternative energy generating venues can’t REALLY get off the ground, en masse, until the dominating oligarchy is ‘defeated’. Agreed?
(HOW and by WHOM is not on the table at the mo … )
3. This is a ‘political issue’. Agreed?
How’s that for starters? Is there any common ground here or are ‘we’ just meant to rant and rave until we kinda feel better, and like, IN CONTROL?

“1. An oil oligarchy dominates the energy ‘business’. Agreed?
2. Alternative energy generating venues can’t REALLY get off the ground, en masse, until the dominating oligarchy is ‘defeated’. Agreed?
(HOW and by WHOM is not on the table at the mo … )
3. This is a ‘political issue’. Agreed?”
Yes, No, and No.

Canadada,
I am through agruing with people like you. I have found that it only furthers your cause which is dangerous. Your mind is closed, and I am not interested in trying to open it. My only goal is to point out the dangers of environmental extremism so that others will not fall in the same trap. However, thank you for proving my point that the myth about “Global Warming” is all about leftist ideology and not about CO2 at all (another lie to add to the list).
As far as taking the bait, I think you are trying to bait me with the silly, leading questions. Since, like I said earlier, it only furthers the extremist’s cause while not adding to the discussion logically, I think I’ll pass.
p.s. Sorry about having to use the words such as “stupid”; however since Al Gore has spat in everyones face by telling everyone the debate is over, your side should expect what is coming to you.

FYI,
When I say that it only furthers your cause, I don’t mean that your arguments are so valid that they prove anything. What I mean is that in politics, it does not matter if you are right or wrong as long as you have a cause you will peel off at least some votes.

The IBM quote is a bit misleading. At the time it was probably true that the market was for 5 computers.
We don’t know the context for a lot of these quotes.