Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Future

by Craig and Sherwood Idso

Special Issue

This week we announce the release of our newest major report, Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path. Based on the voluminous periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration has come to be viewed as a monumental danger — not only to human society, but to the world of nature as well. But are the horrific “doomsday scenarios” promulgated by the climate alarmists as set-in-stone as the public is led to believe? Do we really know all of the complex and interacting processes that should be included in the models upon which these scenarios are based? And can we properly reduce those processes into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future? At present, the only way to properly answer these questions is to compare climate model projections with real-world observations. Theory is one thing, but empirical reality is quite another. The former may or may not be correct, but the latter is always right. As such, the only truly objective method to evaluate climate model projections is by comparing them with real-world data.

In what follows, we conduct just such an appraisal, comparing against real-world observations ten of the more ominous model-based predictions of what will occur in response to continued business-as-usual anthropogenic CO2 emissions: (1) unprecedented warming of the planet, (2) more frequent and severe floods and droughts, (3) more numerous and stronger hurricanes, (4) dangerous sea level rise, (5) more frequent and severe storms, (6) increased human mortality, (7) widespread plant and animal extinctions, (8) declining vegetative productivity, (9) deadly coral bleaching, and (10) a decimation of the planet’s marine life due to ocean acidification. And in conjunction with these analyses, we proffer our view of what the future may hold with respect to the climatic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, concluding by providing an assessment of what we feel should be done about the situation.

Click on the links below to read the report, or download the full report in a pdf file (2.5 mb in size) below.


Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

1. Unprecedented Warming of the Planet

2. More Frequent and Severe Floods and Droughts

3. More Frequent and Severe Hurricanes

4. Rising Sea Levels Inundating Coastal Lowlands

5. More Frequent and Severe Storms

6. Increased Human Mortality

7. Widespread Plant and Animal Extinctions

8. Declining Vegetative Productivity

9. Frequent Coral Bleaching

10. Marine Life Dissolving Away in Acidified Oceans

CONCLUDING COMMENTARY

REFERENCES

Executive Summary


As presently constituted, earth’s atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide or CO2. That’s only four-hundredths of one percent. Consequently, even if the air’s CO2 concentration was tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over one tenth of one percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earth’s atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, a small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, and the destruction of many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases in extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes.

As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to determine the state of earth’s climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did — which we don’t — could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future?

Some people answer these questions in the affirmative. However, as may be seen in the body of this report, real-world observations fail to confirm essentially all of the alarming predictions of significant increases in the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and hurricanes that climate models suggest should occur in response to a global warming of the magnitude that was experienced by the earth over the past two centuries as it gradually recovered from the much-lower-than-present temperatures characteristic of the depths of the Little Ice Age. And other observations have shown that the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the planet, as they have significantly enhanced the plant productivity and vegetative water use efficiency of earth’s natural and agro-ecosystems, leading to a significant “greening of the earth.”

In the pages that follow, we present this oft-neglected evidence via a review of the pertinent scientific literature. In the case of the biospheric benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, we find that with more CO2 in the air, plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way, and that they do it more efficiently, with respect to their utilization of valuable natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals and people that depend upon them for their sustenance.

Likewise, in the case of climate model inadequacies, we reveal their many shortcomings via a comparison of their “doom and gloom” predictions with real-world observations. And this exercise reveals that even though the world has warmed substantially over the past century or more — at a rate that is claimed by many to have been unprecedented over the past one to two millennia — this report demonstrates that none of the environmental catastrophes that are predicted by climate alarmists to be produced by such a warming has ever come to pass. And this fact — that there have been no significant increases in either the frequency or severity of droughts, floods or hurricanes over the past two centuries or more of global warming — poses an important question. What should be easier to predict: the effects of global warming on extreme weather events or the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on global temperature? The first part of this question should, in principle, be answerable; for it is well defined in terms of the small number of known factors likely to play a role in linking the independent variable (global warming) with the specified weather phenomena (droughts, floods and hurricanes). The latter part of the question, on the other hand, is ill-defined and possibly even unanswerable; for there are many factors — physical, chemical and biological — that could well be involved in linking CO2 (or causing it not to be linked) to global temperature.

If, then, today’s climate models cannot correctly predict what should be relatively easy for them to correctly predict (the effect of global warming on extreme weather events), why should we believe what they say about something infinitely more complex (the effect of a rise in the air’s CO2 content on mean global air temperature)? Clearly, we should pay the models no heed in the matter of future climate — especially in terms of predictions based on the behavior of a non-meteorological parameter (CO2) — until they can reproduce the climate of the past, based on the behavior of one of the most basic of all true meteorological parameters (temperature). And even if the models eventually solve this part of the problem, we should still reserve judgment on their forecasts of global warming; for there will yet be a vast gulf between where they will be at that time and where they will have to go to be able to meet the much greater challenge to which they aspire.

Idso – CO2 and Earth’s Future 1-31-11 (PDF 2.5MB)

h/t to Bob Feguson, SPPI

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
David Ball

It has yet to be proven that Co2 does ANYTHING in our atmosphere regarding forcing. It is a leap of faith to claim anything else. To say that any warming is attributed to Co2 is also a leap of faith. We have no baseline to compare. Period.

Michael

Time to coin a name for the new monster snow and ice storm.
I’ll get you started;
Snowmageddon Squared.

Mike

“But are the horrific “doomsday scenarios” promulgated by the climate alarmists as set-in-stone as the public is led to believe? Do we really know all of the complex and interacting processes that should be included in the models upon which these scenarios are based?”
If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out,” wouldn’t you at least slow down? The idea that you need 100% certainty before you take acti0n to prevent harm is absurd.
This “report” seems to mainly presents caricatures of the various scientific claims – notice they are not referenced – and then cherry picks to refute them. I’ve only skimmed through it, but every claim made in this report that I saw has been debunked many many times.
It is time to get serious and have a real discussion about how to proceed. There are costs and risks in action and inaction. These need to be assessed as best we can. But people who cannot handle basic science should not be taken seriously.

P.G. Sharrow

“If, then, today’s climate models cannot correctly predict what should be relatively easy for them to correctly predict (the effect of global warming on extreme weather events), why should we believe what they say about something infinitely more complex (the effect of a rise in the air’s CO2 content on mean global air temperature)? Clearly, we should pay the models no heed in the matter of future climate ”
No matter how many times you run the Computer models, the results are wrong.
If was me, I would toss out the model and start over. But the AGCC people insist that the projected data is correct and actual data is wrong and must be corrected to match the computer projections. pg

rsteneck

Brief Summary: CO2/DOSE NOT = GLOBAL WARNING
OR ENCOMPASS THE PROBLEM
The Bright Morning Stars will restore
The Bio-Electrode Magnesium Levels in our Atmosphere will restore by
Producing Molly Cellulite
That life will rebuild itself and we can maintain our planet with
Light, care, and reduce the energy required .With Seven Satellite it
Will require and the cooperation of all cities and every nations
Within range not use Public Lighting unless need.
The start up cost is enormous, but the cost is low to preserve the
Only earth we have and THE {{MEMBRANE ARE WORLD REQUIRES} AND REPAIR
Give all children what is their better
AND LET THEM LIVE
Look at the moon it’s quit a thing to view orange eclipse’s DAILY.;
As well the carbohydrate’s in random species GLOBAL
Robert Steneck
1995the northern hemisphere is risen temp do to ring of fire and
Activity and more SNOW MELTS FROM BELOW.
I told them it would require FIFTEEN YEAR, S TO PREVENT WEN REPOSED
WE HAVE A GRATER ISSUES WE CAN ESTIMATE IN DUR ONLY 22% SERVILE RATE I THY WANT TO DANCE THAT PEOPLE
THANK YOU

juanslayton

Mike: If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out,” wouldn’t you at least slow down?
Not if I had just crossed the bridge and the sign was facing oncoming traffic. I would, however, wonder about the sign painter’s skill at hindcasting road conditions.

tokyoboy

Mike says: January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“The idea that you need 100% certainty before you take acti0n to prevent harm is absurd. ”
An unhurried adaptation is, without doubt, much much cheaper than mitigation, let alone computer forecasting.
For the moment I (I bet you too) see no sign of an upcoming catastrophe due exclusively to the rising CO2 level.
In addition, I see nobody, among people (politicians, bureaucrats, researchers, reporters etc.) here in Japan, who tries to reduce his/her personal CO2 emissions. Please tell me what you are doing to attain your “goal.”

Mike says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out,” wouldn’t you at least slow down?

How about presenting an analogy that actually makes sense in the real world. Have you ever seen such a sign? Do you ever expect to see one? Didn’t think so.

Another alarmist claim bites the dust:
http://www.qando.net/?p=10230

GregO

Mike,
The question really is, where did you get the 30% likelihood the bridge is out and what is the consequence of not crossing the bridge? Is it a country doctor headed toward a difficult childbirth or a family outing to see the latest movie by David Cameron?

Lew Skannen

“The former may or may not be correct, but the latter is always right. ”
You obviously have not come up against the fundamentalist warmists. Reality takes a back seat to their models.

Haralds R.

I put tugether 2 data maps NASA GISS and NOAA:
NASA GISS vs NOAA
From these maps can see that 2 and more degrees difference between both data sets are common.
Therefore how can i trust the data. If the difference is so huge , them maybe year 2010 is not hottest on record, but maybe below average ?

jaypan

Good to see a face behind such common sense science.
And , Mike at 9.15, your 30% bridge example is simply ridiculous.
Read Hansen’s 1988 interview about “flooded Manhattan in 20 years”, which didn’t happen, as we see. Should we have given up the place, just in case?
Explain why Al Gore bought a penthouse at Fishermen’s Wharf, just at the time as he told the world that most part of SF would soon be under water by rising sea level.
(Well, yeah, a penthouse is a kind of safe place, but think of the value the property is losing. I mean, Al Baby made a bad investment, if he is right)
And explain why all these enlightened climate alarmists are jetsetting from one event to the other, from Bali to Bora Bora to Cancun, to tell us how too big our CO2 footprint is. Funny, or not?
Don’t believe’em before they themselves do some real reduction, but trading carbon offsets doesn’t count …

Andrew30

If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance that a an asteroid will stike this road before the end of time,” wouldn’t you at least slow down? The idea that you need 100% certainty before you take acti0n to prevent harm is absurd.
Unless the threat of harm is itself is absurd.
PS.
Mike, you are the 10,000,000th visitor, click to collect your prize.

FrankK

Mike says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out,” wouldn’t you at least slow down? The idea that you need 100% certainty before you take acti0n to prevent harm is absurd.
========================================================
Well it depends who was giving the advice.
If you were told that there is a 30% chance the bridge is out by an astrologer but a qualified civil engineer said there was little risk – who would most likely believe?
And if the astrologer told you that if you took action it would mean you had to forfeit a large part of your income to fix it with a down payment to the astrologer– who would you most likely agree with ?.
Climate astrology is not climate science- you need to go look at the evidence for yourself.

otter17

I watched the video, and I noticed the Caillon, et al study “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III” used as a reference.
While the time lag is quoted well and good, the rest of the video runs counter to some of the findings in the Caillon et al study. They claim that a glacial to interglacial period is amplified by CO2.
“This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing.”
Also, they mention in their final paragraph they mention that there would be a lag in temperatures if CO2 concentrations were to increase first (due to anthropogenic means, for example).
“Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time
for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere.”
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
Skeptical Science has a pretty good article that runs counter to some of the claims in the video as well. The journal sources used in their article are linked.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
I’ll have to check out the report text from CO2 Science in more detail. I am a bit skeptical of the first section, for the reasons outlined above. I’ll have to read the rest of the article and read up more on the organization to see what the findings are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

Bob Diaz

Satire Mode = ON:
Clearly the Global Warming is NOT due to CO2, but could be due to the high levels of Ice Cream Consumption. That’s right, when you eat cold ice cream, the cold goes away and less cold = more warm. This theory is proven by a secret simulation program that shows a strong correlation between ice cream consumption and the Earth’s Temperature.
Thus, in order to save the Earth, you need to give up eating ice cream!!! Also, send me large quantities of money and be prepared to give up a bunch of freedoms. Maybe the ice cream theory is correct, but you should do it “just in case”!!! Do it for the children!!!

David Ball

I know of one species that is going extinct: GW alarmists.

Claude Harvey

Re: Mike says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out,” wouldn’t you at least slow down? The idea that you need 100% certainty before you take acti0n to prevent harm is absurd.”
Your analogy is not quite appropriate. Let me revise:
I’ve been riding along a perfectly familiar road in perfectly familiar (and variable) weather for many miles. Every bridge I come to says, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out.” At first, I slow down for each upcoming bridge. But after I find every bridge I cross to be in perfectly sound condition, the warning sign begins to lose its impact. As I progress along my trip, I observe no reason why ANY bridge should be “out”. I also notice signs that say, “The end is near”, “Love animals; don’t eat them” and “Moby Dick is not a social disease”. I begin to categorize all those signs under a single category in my mind; the “fruits and nuts” repository.

Dave Wendt

“Theory is one thing, but empirical reality is quite another. The former may or may not be correct, but the latter is always right. As such, the only truly objective method to evaluate climate model projections is by comparing them with real-world data.”
The real world is indeed the final arbiter of truth and good empirical observational data is a much better approximation of reality than any GCM, but even the best data is still only an approximation of the world. The recent posts on the weaknesses of our current levels of excellence in metrology in the climate field suggest a need to remain cognizant of the risk of the implicit fallacy of assuming that our data is reality. The extraordinary technological advances of recent times allow us to map our world with much greater precision than at any time in human history, but in the end, the outputs of all those wonderful magic boxes circling the planet on various satellites are still just maps. In between the actual measurements taken by the satellite instruments and the data that is finally made available for analysis there is, in almost every case, a vast assortment of corrections, fudge factors, and models that the statistical blacksmiths use to put those measurements on the anvil and hammer them into the desired shape. As a result we are presented with endless data sets tabulated and graphed to nearly nonsensical levels of precision with the logical implication that the accuracy corresponds to the precision. If you delve deep enough into the methodologies used, you will usually find an admission that the claimed accuracy is much worse, but even those claims tend to be hopelessly optimistic.
But enough of my ranting about my personal pet peeve. Aside from that nitpick, I find your work to be quite good, but perhaps that is because it tends to support my own prejudices. I’ve always been mostly agnostic on the matter of what is driving the climate, though I’ve seen very little that suggests that much of a human effect is necessary to account for recent trends beyond the null hypothesis of natural variability. My problem has always been with the never ending cascade of projected catastrophes which have, almost without exception, seemed to be utter nonsense. I only had time for a brief scan of the paper, but it appears you’ve done a noteworthy job of assembling good arguments and data to verify my suspicions. Thank you. These supposed dangers of climate change have been the bludgeon that the collectivist supporters of cap and tax and unsustainable “sustainability” have used to beat down any resistance to their plans and demolishing them is the most effective way to derail
Pauchuri’s train to Hell.

Carl Chapman

You mention that the only evidence for CAGW is computer models. Christopher Booker has a column about Sir Paul Nurse’s attack on sceptics. At the top of the column is a photo of Nurse sitting in front of a microscope, presumably as part of his research into genetics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-warmists-abuse-the-science.html
Strange. Why does Nurse think he needs a microscope. The Climate Scientists just do “experiments” by running climate models in a computer.
Nurse has been hoodwinked by scammers who have convinced him that they are scientists, just like him. He wants to defend the name of science but hasn’t realised that the worst thing he can do is defend people who are abusing the scientific process.

Grey Lensman

Mike said
Quote
But people who cannot handle basic science should not be taken seriously.
Unquote
A nice self description I think.
Great report, dismantles, leg by leg, each and every of the watermelons doom and gloom claims. Carefully, thoughtfully and with references and experiment. ( Unlike Mikes claims but then he only glanced through it).
Indeed I noted that they achieved to total debunk whilst only using a small part of the data available. No small mean feat. But then the alarmists claims really are off the wall. A single example is the great extinction myth, well debunked here.

Kev-in-Uk

I think the road sign analogy is rather absurd. Not least because it is the decision of an individual being made as to what speed they might continue on the road. Even then, we are talking probability and risk which is assessed differently by different people.
Taking all the individuals in the world right now – say 7 billion? – getting them ALL to do the SAME thing in an effort to avoid a ‘possible event’ is dreaming.
We have human rights bills and stuff like that – supposedly very important – how many countries ignore them?
Or perhaps you could wonder how many of the worlds population currently have life insurance – as a saftey net for their children? This is of course an absolute fact (that one is going to die sometime!) so you would think that everyone has life insurance? -but they flipping don’t!
Now, consider that the ‘insurance’ is based on uncertain science, weak principles and very limited data – whats the uptake likely to be? (Oh, and don’t forget the usual small print – stuff like – ‘the value of your investment could go down as well as up’ – or, ‘we make no guarantee to be able to pay out in the event of a claim’!)
So then we have the 64 million dollar question, – Is it right for supposed governments to impose such high grade ‘insurance’ on its peoples?
AGW insurance is a con and a scam and we don’t have to tolerate it.

David

Mike says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“This “report” seems to mainly presents caricatures of the various scientific claims – notice they are not referenced – and then cherry picks to refute them. I’ve only skimmed through it…”
WOW Mike, just wow, talk about foot in mouth, palm face. Go to the end of the report and click on references. To save you time I have printed about ten % of them…
References
——————————————————————————–
Aagaard, T., Orford, J. and Murray, A.S. 2007. Environmental controls on coastal dune formation: Skallingen Spit, Denmark. Geomorphology 83: 29-47.
Ackert Jr., R.P. 2003. An ice sheet remembers. Science 299: 57-58.
Adams, N.R., Owensby, C.E. and Ham, J.M. 2000. The effect of CO2 enrichment on leaf photosynthetic rates and instantaneous water use efficiency of Andropogon gerardii in the tallgrass prairie. Photosynthesis Research 65: 121-129.
Adjeroud, M., Augustin, D., Galzin, R. and Salvat, B. 2002. Natural disturbances and interannual variability of coral reef communities on the outer slope of Tiahura (Moorea, French Polynesia): 1991 to 1997. Marine Ecology Progress Series 237: 121-131.
Adjeroud, M., Chancerelle, Y., Schrimm, M., Perez, T., Lecchini, D., Galzin, R. and Salvat, B. 2005. Detecting the effects of natural disturbances on coral assemblages in French Polynesia: A decade survey at multiple scales. Aquatic Living Resources 18: 111-123.
Alcaraz-Segura, D., Cabello, J., Paruelo, J.M. and Delibes, M. 2008. Trends in the surface vegetation dynamics of the national parks of Spain as observed by satellite sensors. Applied Vegetation Science 11: 431-440.
Allan, R.P. and Soden, B.J. 2008. Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes. Science 321: 1481-1484.
Alley, R.B., Clark, P.U., Huybrechts, P. and Joughin, I. 2005. Ice-sheet and sea-level changes. Science 310: 456-460.
Analitis, A., Katsouyanni, K., Biggeri, A., Baccini, M., Forsberg, B., Bisanti, L., Kirchmayer, U., Ballester, F., Cadum, E., Goodman, P.G., Hojs, A., Sunyer, J., Tiittanen, P. and Michelozzi, P. 2008. Effects of cold weather on mortality: Results from 15 European cities within the PHEWE project. American Journal of Epidemiology 168: 1397-1408.
Anderson, P.D. and Tomlinson, P.T. 1998. Ontogeny affects response of northern red oak seedlings to elevated CO2 and water stress. I. Carbon assimilation and biomass production. New Phytologist 140: 477-491.
Andreadis, K.M. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2006. Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL025711.
Andreadis, K.M., Clark, E.A., Wood, A.W., Hamlet, A.F. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Twentieth-century drought in the conterminous United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology 6: 985-1001.
Angelini, R., Finarelli, A.C., Angelini, P., Po, C., Petropulacos, K., Macini, P., Fiorentini, C., Fortuna, C., Venturi, G., Romi, R., Majori, G., Nicoletti, L., Rezza, G. and Cassone, A. 2007. An outbreak of chikungunya fever in the province of Ravenna, Italy. Eurosurveillance 12: eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?Articleid=3260.
Anyamba, A. and Tucker, C.J. 2005. Analysis of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using NOAA-AVHRR NDVI data from 1981-2003. Journal of Arid Environments 63: 596-614.
Apprill, A.M. and Gates, R.D. 2007. Recognizing diversity in coral symbiotic dinoflagellate communities. Journal of Experimental Botany 16: 1127-1134.
Arneth, A., Lloyd, J., Santruckova, H., Bird, M., Grigoryev, S., Kalaschnikov, Y.N., Gleixner, G. and Schulze, E.-D. 2002. Response of central Siberian Scots pine to soil water deficit and long-term trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16: 10.1029/2000GB001374.
Asmerom, Y., Polyak, V., Burns, S. and Rassmussen, J. 2007. Solar forcing of Holocene climate: New insights from a speleothem record, southwestern United States. Geology 35: 1-4.
Ayre, D.J. and Hughes, T.P. 2004. Climate change, genotypic diversity and gene flow in reef-building corals. Ecology Letters 7: 273-278.
Baird, A.H., Cumbo, V.R., Leggat, W. and Rodriguez-Lanetty, M. 2007. Fidelity and flexibility in coral symbioses. Marine Ecology Progress Series 347: 307-309.
Baker, A.C. 2001. Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature 411: 765-766.
Baker, A.C., Starger, C.J., McClanahan, T.R. and Glynn, P.W. 2002. Symbiont communities in reef corals following the 1997-98 El Niño — will recovering reefs be more resistant to a subsequent bleaching event? Proceedings of the International Society of Reef Studies (Abstract Volume 10: European Meeting, Cambridge, UK, September).
Baker, A.C., Starger, C.J., McClanahan, T.R. and Glynn, P.W. 2004. Corals’ adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430: 741.
Balling Jr., R.C. and Cerveny, R.S. 2003. Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs. climate reality. Natural Hazards 29: 103-112.
Banfai, D.S. and Bowman, D.M.J.S. 2006. Forty years of lowland monsoon rainforest expansion in Kakadu national Park, Northern Australia. Biological Conservation 131: 553-565.
Barredo, J.I. 2009. Normalized flood losses in Europe: 1970-2006. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9: 97-104.
Barredo, J.I. 2010. No upward trend in normalized windstorm losses in Europe: 1970-2008. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 10: 97-104.
Barring L. and von Storch, H. 2004. Scandinavian storminess since about 1800. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2004GL020441.
Barring, L. and Fortuniak, K. 2009. Multi-indices analysis of southern Scandinavian storminess 1780-2005 and links to interdecadal variations in the NW Europe-North Sea region. International Journal of Climatology 29: 373-384.
Bartak, M., Raschi, A. and Tognetti, R. 1999. Photosynthetic characteristics of sun and shade leaves in the canopy of Arbutus unedo L. trees exposed to in situ long-term elevated CO2. Photosynthetica 37: 1-16.
Battaglia, M., Beadle, C. and Loughhead, S. 1996. Photosynthetic temperature response of Eucalyptus globules and Eucalyptus nitens. Tree Physiology 16: 81-89.
Bayentin, L., El Adlouni, S., Ouarda, T.B.M.J., Gosselin, P., Doyon, B. and Chebana, F. 2010. Spatial variability of climate effects on ischemic heart disease hospitalization rates for the period 1989-2006 in Quebec, Canada. International Journal of Health Geographics 9: 10.1186/1476-072X-9-5.
Beale, C.M., Lennon, J.J. and Gimona, A. 2008. Opening the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 14,908-14,912.
Beerling, D.J. and Mayle, F.E. 2006. Contrasting effects of climate and CO2 on Amazonian ecosystems since the last glacial maximum. Global Change Biology 12: 1977-1984.
Beerling, D.J., McElwain, J.C. and Osborne, C.P. 1998. Stomatal responses of the ‘living fossil’ Ginkgo biloba L. to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 1603-1607.
Begon, M., Townsend, C. and Harper, J. 2005. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Bell, R.C., Parra, J.L., Tonione, M., Hoskin, C.J., Mackenzie, J.B., Williams, S.E. and Moritz, C. 2010. Patterns of persistence and isolation indicate resilience to climate change in montane rainforest lizards. Journal of Experimental Botany 19: 2531-2544.
Bengtsson, L., Hodges, K.I., Esch, M., Keelyside, N., Kornbluehm, L., Luo, J.-J. and Yamagata, T. 2007. How may tropical cyclones change in a warmer climate? Tellus Series A 59: 531-561.
Benito, G., Rico, M., Sanchez-Moya, Y., Sopena, A., Thorndycraft, V.R. and Barriendos, M. 2010. The impact of late Holocene climatic variability and land use change on the flood hydrology of the Guadalentin River, southeast Spain. Global and Planetary Change 70: 53-63.
Benson, L., Kashgarian, M., Rye, R., Lund, S., Paillet, F., Smoot, J., Kester, C., Mensing, S., Meko, D. and Lindstrom, S. 2002. Holocene multidecadal and multicentennial droughts affecting Northern California and Nevada. Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 659-682.
Benson, L.V., Berry, M.S., Jolie, E.A., Spangler, J.D., Stahle, D.W. and Hattori, E.M. 2007. Possible impacts of early-llth-, middle-12th-, and late-13th-century droughts on western Native Americans and the Mississippian Cahokians. Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 336-350.
Bering Ovesen, N., Legard Iversen, H., Larsen, S., Muller-Wohlfeil, D.I. and Svendsen, L. 2000. Afstromningsforhold i danske vandlob. Faglig rapport fra DMU, no. 340. Miljo- og Energiministeriet. Danmarks Miljoundersogelser, Silkeborg, Denmark.
Berkelmans, R. and van Oppen, M.J.H. 2006. The role of zooxanthellae in the thermal tolerance of corals: a “nugget of hope” for coral reefs in an era of climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273: 2305-2312.
Berry, J. and Bjorkman, O. 1980. Photosynthetic response and adaptation to temperature in higher plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 31: 491-543.
Bert, D., Leavitt, S.W. and Dupouey, J.-L. 1997. Variations of wood δ13C and water-use efficiency of Abies alba during the last century. Ecology 78: 1588-1596.

Claude Harvey

Bob Diez’s “Ice Cream” theory makes more sense than half the academically rigorous “poop-blizzard” I see published in peer-reviewed journals. Good God! Can it have become that easy to obtain a PhD and get yourself published in prestigious journals? Apparently so, if you wisely choose your subject.

David

Mike says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“This “report” seems to mainly presents caricatures of the various scientific claims – notice they are not referenced – and then cherry picks to refute them. I’ve only skimmed through it…”
WOW Mike, just wow, talk about foot in mouth, palm face. Go to the end of the report and click on references. To save you time I have printed about five % of them…
References
——————————————————————————–
Aagaard, T., Orford, J. and Murray, A.S. 2007. Environmental controls on coastal dune formation: Skallingen Spit, Denmark. Geomorphology 83: 29-47.
Ackert Jr., R.P. 2003. An ice sheet remembers. Science 299: 57-58.
Adams, N.R., Owensby, C.E. and Ham, J.M. 2000. The effect of CO2 enrichment on leaf photosynthetic rates and instantaneous water use efficiency of Andropogon gerardii in the tallgrass prairie. Photosynthesis Research 65: 121-129.
Adjeroud, M., Augustin, D., Galzin, R. and Salvat, B. 2002. Natural disturbances and interannual variability of coral reef communities on the outer slope of Tiahura (Moorea, French Polynesia): 1991 to 1997. Marine Ecology Progress Series 237: 121-131.
Adjeroud, M., Chancerelle, Y., Schrimm, M., Perez, T., Lecchini, D., Galzin, R. and Salvat, B. 2005. Detecting the effects of natural disturbances on coral assemblages in French Polynesia: A decade survey at multiple scales. Aquatic Living Resources 18: 111-123.
Alcaraz-Segura, D., Cabello, J., Paruelo, J.M. and Delibes, M. 2008. Trends in the surface vegetation dynamics of the national parks of Spain as observed by satellite sensors. Applied Vegetation Science 11: 431-440.
Allan, R.P. and Soden, B.J. 2008. Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes. Science 321: 1481-1484.
Alley, R.B., Clark, P.U., Huybrechts, P. and Joughin, I. 2005. Ice-sheet and sea-level changes. Science 310: 456-460.
Analitis, A., Katsouyanni, K., Biggeri, A., Baccini, M., Forsberg, B., Bisanti, L., Kirchmayer, U., Ballester, F., Cadum, E., Goodman, P.G., Hojs, A., Sunyer, J., Tiittanen, P. and Michelozzi, P. 2008. Effects of cold weather on mortality: Results from 15 European cities within the PHEWE project. American Journal of Epidemiology 168: 1397-1408.
Anderson, P.D. and Tomlinson, P.T. 1998. Ontogeny affects response of northern red oak seedlings to elevated CO2 and water stress. I. Carbon assimilation and biomass production. New Phytologist 140: 477-491.
Andreadis, K.M. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2006. Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL025711.
Andreadis, K.M., Clark, E.A., Wood, A.W., Hamlet, A.F. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2005. Twentieth-century drought in the conterminous United States. Journal of Hydrometeorology 6: 985-1001.
Angelini, R., Finarelli, A.C., Angelini, P., Po, C., Petropulacos, K., Macini, P., Fiorentini, C., Fortuna, C., Venturi, G., Romi, R., Majori, G., Nicoletti, L., Rezza, G. and Cassone, A. 2007. An outbreak of chikungunya fever in the province of Ravenna, Italy. Eurosurveillance 12: eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?Articleid=3260.
Anyamba, A. and Tucker, C.J. 2005. Analysis of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using NOAA-AVHRR NDVI data from 1981-2003. Journal of Arid Environments 63: 596-614.
Apprill, A.M. and Gates, R.D. 2007. Recognizing diversity in coral symbiotic dinoflagellate communities. Journal of Experimental Botany 16: 1127-1134.
Arneth, A., Lloyd, J., Santruckova, H., Bird, M., Grigoryev, S., Kalaschnikov, Y.N., Gleixner, G. and Schulze, E.-D. 2002. Response of central Siberian Scots pine to soil water deficit and long-term trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16: 10.1029/2000GB001374.
Asmerom, Y., Polyak, V., Burns, S. and Rassmussen, J. 2007. Solar forcing of Holocene climate: New insights from a speleothem record, southwestern United States. Geology 35: 1-4.
Ayre, D.J. and Hughes, T.P. 2004. Climate change, genotypic diversity and gene flow in reef-building corals. Ecology Letters 7: 273-278.
Baird, A.H., Cumbo, V.R., Leggat, W. and Rodriguez-Lanetty, M. 2007. Fidelity and flexibility in coral symbioses. Marine Ecology Progress Series 347: 307-309.
Baker, A.C. 2001. Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature 411: 765-766.
Baker, A.C., Starger, C.J., McClanahan, T.R. and Glynn, P.W. 2002. Symbiont communities in reef corals following the 1997-98 El Niño — will recovering reefs be more resistant to a subsequent bleaching event? Proceedings of the International Society of Reef Studies (Abstract Volume 10: European Meeting, Cambridge, UK, September).
Baker, A.C., Starger, C.J., McClanahan, T.R. and Glynn, P.W. 2004. Corals’ adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430: 741.
Balling Jr., R.C. and Cerveny, R.S. 2003. Compilation and discussion of trends in severe storms in the United States: Popular perception vs. climate reality. Natural Hazards 29: 103-112.
Banfai, D.S. and Bowman, D.M.J.S. 2006. Forty years of lowland monsoon rainforest expansion in Kakadu national Park, Northern Australia. Biological Conservation 131: 553-565.
Barredo, J.I. 2009. Normalized flood losses in Europe: 1970-2006. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9: 97-104.
Barredo, J.I. 2010. No upward trend in normalized windstorm losses in Europe: 1970-2008. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 10: 97-104.
Barring L. and von Storch, H. 2004. Scandinavian storminess since about 1800. Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2004GL020441.
Barring, L. and Fortuniak, K. 2009. Multi-indices analysis of southern Scandinavian storminess 1780-2005 and links to interdecadal variations in the NW Europe-North Sea region. International Journal of Climatology 29: 373-384.
Bartak, M., Raschi, A. and Tognetti, R. 1999. Photosynthetic characteristics of sun and shade leaves in the canopy of Arbutus unedo L. trees exposed to in situ long-term elevated CO2. Photosynthetica 37: 1-16.
Battaglia, M., Beadle, C. and Loughhead, S. 1996. Photosynthetic temperature response of Eucalyptus globules and Eucalyptus nitens. Tree Physiology 16: 81-89.
Bayentin, L., El Adlouni, S., Ouarda, T.B.M.J., Gosselin, P., Doyon, B. and Chebana, F. 2010. Spatial variability of climate effects on ischemic heart disease hospitalization rates for the period 1989-2006 in Quebec, Canada. International Journal of Health Geographics 9: 10.1186/1476-072X-9-5.
Beale, C.M., Lennon, J.J. and Gimona, A. 2008. Opening the climate envelope reveals no macroscale associations with climate in European birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 14,908-14,912.
Beerling, D.J. and Mayle, F.E. 2006. Contrasting effects of climate and CO2 on Amazonian ecosystems since the last glacial maximum. Global Change Biology 12: 1977-1984.
Beerling, D.J., McElwain, J.C. and Osborne, C.P. 1998. Stomatal responses of the ‘living fossil’ Ginkgo biloba L. to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 1603-1607.
Begon, M., Townsend, C. and Harper, J. 2005. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Bell, R.C., Parra, J.L., Tonione, M., Hoskin, C.J., Mackenzie, J.B., Williams, S.E. and Moritz, C. 2010. Patterns of persistence and isolation indicate resilience to climate change in montane rainforest lizards. Journal of Experimental Botany 19: 2531-2544.
Bengtsson, L., Hodges, K.I., Esch, M., Keelyside, N., Kornbluehm, L., Luo, J.-J. and Yamagata, T. 2007. How may tropical cyclones change in a warmer climate? Tellus Series A 59: 531-561.
Benito, G., Rico, M., Sanchez-Moya, Y., Sopena, A., Thorndycraft, V.R. and Barriendos, M. 2010. The impact of late Holocene climatic variability and land use change on the flood hydrology of the Guadalentin River, southeast Spain. Global and Planetary Change 70: 53-63.
Benson, L., Kashgarian, M., Rye, R., Lund, S., Paillet, F., Smoot, J., Kester, C., Mensing, S., Meko, D. and Lindstrom, S. 2002. Holocene multidecadal and multicentennial droughts affecting Northern California and Nevada. Quaternary Science Reviews 21: 659-682.
Benson, L.V., Berry, M.S., Jolie, E.A., Spangler, J.D., Stahle, D.W. and Hattori, E.M. 2007. Possible impacts of early-llth-, middle-12th-, and late-13th-century droughts on western Native Americans and the Mississippian Cahokians. Quaternary Science Reviews 26: 336-350.
Bering Ovesen, N., Legard Iversen, H., Larsen, S., Muller-Wohlfeil, D.I. and Svendsen, L. 2000. Afstromningsforhold i danske vandlob. Faglig rapport fra DMU, no. 340. Miljo- og Energiministeriet. Danmarks Miljoundersogelser, Silkeborg, Denmark.
Berkelmans, R. and van Oppen, M.J.H. 2006. The role of zooxanthellae in the thermal tolerance of corals: a “nugget of hope” for coral reefs in an era of climate change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273: 2305-2312.
Berry, J. and Bjorkman, O. 1980. Photosynthetic response and adaptation to temperature in higher plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 31: 491-543.
Bert, D., Leavitt, S.W. and Dupouey, J.-L. 1997. Variations of wood δ13C and water-use efficiency of Abies alba during the last century. Ecology 78: 1588-1596.

David

Mike says:
January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“I’ve only skimmed through it, but every claim made in this report that I saw has been debunked many many times.”
Wow, you know EVERY peer review claim made in a 168 page report full of hundreds of references to peer reviewed articles is false, your power of skimming is quite impressive.
” But people who cannot handle basic science should not be taken seriously.”
Quite correct , and you are not.

tokyoboy

David says: January 31, 2011 at 11:03 pm
“[…..] Apprill, A.M. and Gates, R.D. 2007. Recognizing […..] . Journal of Experimental Botany 16: 1127-1134.[…..]”
Hmm … I saw a very similar name somewhere sometime. ……

John Whitman

Craig and Sherwood Idso,
Thank you for your well thought out report.
It is yet further evidence that climate related science is in a renaissance/reformation. Your efforts are appreciated. NOTE: I think PNS never existed accept in the hopes of the likes of the organizers of the Lisbon Conference that recently concluded.
John

alleagra

Mike – ‘It is time to get serious and have a real discussion about how to proceed. There are costs and risks in action and inaction. These need to be assessed as best we can. But people who cannot handle basic science should not be taken seriously.’
One of the authors of the article you dismiss is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications. Unless you can show us where the authors have made some elementary mistake your remark comes across as rather silly doesn’t it?
You offer a lousy analogy by the way. The supposed facts on which the notice is based might be wrong (core of the climate debate). Especially so if the folk who put up the notice hava a financial interest in setting up that road sign.

Simon Barnett

Mike —
Hmm, your comments seem to have been “debunked many times”.

Scottish Sceptic

Mike says:
“I’ve only skimmed through it, but every claim made in this report that I saw has been debunked many many times.
It is time to get serious and have a real discussion about how to proceed.”

Mike,
By your stupid logic, because 23,000 people die each year in the UK due to cold and around 40,000 during the coldest years (compared to 2300 during the one hot year we’ve managed to have recently) , using your stupid precautionary principle we should be actively trying to heat the bl**dy globe not cool it.
Stick that in the space between your ears, cause unless you can get of your fat behind and start proving some of your ridiculous assertions the thing that really needs discussing is when people like you who “cry fire in a crowded cinema” should be prosecuted.

Scottish Sceptic

Now that I’ve calmed down.
Craig and Sherwood Idso, that is a superb job and honestly, I wasn’t aware of the overwhelming tsunami of information against these assertions.
I really think we should try to put this together as a book and send one to each and every member of the US and UK legislatures.
However, before that is done, I strongly suggest you tone down the language re alarmists. Yes they are like mosquitoes, but in an assessment of the science of mosquitoes, using emotive language doesn’t add to the scientific credibility.
Can you tell me whether you have plans to produce a hardcopy, because if not, I will at least print this out and send a copy to my MP. She may not read it, but at least she’ll feel the weight!

michel

If you were driving fast along a foggy road and you saw a sign that said, “There is a 30% chance the bridge is out,” wouldn’t you at least slow down? The idea that you need 100% certainty before you take acti0n to prevent harm is absurd.

This is Pascal’s Wager. If there was only a tiny chance that by not believing in the one true and orthodox church you would go to hell for eternity, would it not be smarter to just believe than to wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Now all you have to do is decide which that church is.
The problem with Pascal’s Wager from the warmists is that it would also show that we should increase emissions. If there is only a small chance that by doing do we could avert another ice age…. surely we ought to act now, and not wait for 100% certainty. After all, if we were driving a foggy road and there was a small chance the bridge were out….
It is a ridiculous argument both in the case of religion and in the case of climate because it proves too much and does so by bypassing the need to establish the probability of the danger. If there is no evidence at all that rising CO2 levels will lead to disaster, or even anything bad at all, then no, we should not embark on expensive remedies with appalling side effects.
The problem is, there is no way around carefully assessing the evidence, looking at costs and benefits of various courses of action. What warmists like the commenter want to do is find some way of bypassing that. They want to find some way of arguing that in this particular case, evidence which is insufficient can nevertheless justify action.
Look at real world cases where we make these decisions on matters of public importance. A most instructive recent one in the UK. They had to decide whether to vaccinate all under 5s. Their medical panel advised against it, and the government followed this advice. You did not hear anyone arguing along the lines ‘if there is only the smallest chance…’. The reason is, that vaccinating every under 5 child in the country is not risk free either. You really do have to carefully go over the evidence for proposed actions and their alternatives, and in the case of CO2, there is no evidence to justify the extreme measures that the warmists are proposing.
That they continue to propose them in the face of the lack of evidence suggests that their interest is in the measures themselves, not in their efficacy in solving a proven problem cost effectively. That is, what they want is less carbon consumption. Whether its a proportional way of averting any probable catastrophe is not the issue.

Scottish Sceptic

Mike says: January 31, 2011 at 9:15 pm
“This “report” seems to mainly presents caricatures of the various scientific claims – notice they are not referenced – and then cherry picks to refute them. I’ve only skimmed through it, but every claim made in this report that I saw has been debunked many many times. “
Mike, I apologise for tenor of earlier post.
You clearly believe you have a case. It doesn’t help that case to make blatantly untrue assertions like “unreferenced”, which just looks naff when there are tens of pages of references in that report.
However, I’m sure we are willing to listen, but we need much more than “it’s been debunked”. Please tell us what you mean by debunked, and if possible give us some references (preferably to scientific papers written by neutral scientists – and not NGOs or worse opinion pieces dressed up as science by members of the climategate team)

John Whitman

Mike,
So in your analogy, the signposts of CAGW that we should pay attention to as a basis to slow down CO2 emission are perhaps “Gore’s Inconvenient Truth” and the IPCC’s 4th AR (AR4)? Neither of which is sufficiently convincing to many of even the most modestly skeptical thinkers.
John

Nigel Brereton

Mike says:
‘It is time to get serious and have a real discussion about how to proceed. There are costs and risks in action and inaction. These need to be assessed as best we can. But people who cannot handle basic science should not be taken seriously.’
How are you going to indicate which of us can not handle the basic science Mike, would you like us to wear a triangle, would that fall into your agenda?

LazyTeenager

As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models
——-
No, there is more than one source of information.

LazyTeenager

And even if we did — which we don’t — could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the
——–
Well you certainly don’t know, so why assume someone else does not.
This looks like the logical fallacy: that if our knowledge is not perfect then we must know nothing.
And the other logical fallacy: if I don’t understand it it must be stupid.

LazyTeenager

f, then, today’s climate models cannot correctly predict what should be relatively easy for them to correctly predict (the effect of global warming on extreme weather events), why should we believe what they say about something infinitely more complex (the effect of a rise in the air’s CO2 content on mean global air temperature)?
———-
This looks back-to-front to me. I reckon it’s easier to predict global average temperature, since the averaging involved reduces the effect if the deficiencies of the models in handling regional effects.
The general impression I have is that these guys know little about computer modelling and are just recycling stuff they found in blogs.
I smell think tank. I will check where these guys come from in a moment.

LazyTeenager

Yep! a quick Google and these guys pop up famous as characters from think tank land.
I bet their web site has a logo which is professional, perfectly round and imitates the presidential style.

David

Lazy
Your prejudice is showing and you should be embarrassed. You personal attacks add nothing. Such comments are troll like and of no value.

Dave Wendt

LazyTeenager says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:30 am
Yep! a quick Google and these guys pop up famous as characters from think tank land.
I bet their web site has a logo which is professional, perfectly round and imitates the presidential style.
Since the chapter links for the paper go directly to their website, I have to assume you have made no attempt to actually read any of it. That makes you just another [snip] about things you know nothing about. [snip]

LazyTeenager says: “Yep! a quick Google and these guys pop up famous as characters from think tank land.
So what. Drop the personal attacks and concentrate on the science. If these guys are shonks then you should easily find holes in their arguments.

Alexander K

Mike, the secret in using analogy is constructing an analogy that is believable and fits your audienc’s experience of the world. Your road sign analogy does not work at all. as nowhere in the world do roading authorities use probabilities in their signage. If I saw such a sign, I would stop, uproot the sign, throw it in the roadside drainage ditch so it wouldn’t district a nervous driver in the thick fog and probably mutter dark things about “idiot pranksters!” as I got into my car and drove on.

David

LazyTeenager says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:30 am
Yep! a quick Google and these guys pop up famous as characters from think tank land.
I bet their web site has a logo which is professional, perfectly round and imitates the presidential style.”
Sherwood B. Idso assumed the Presidency of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on 4 October 2001. Prior to that time he was a Research Physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [1] in Phoenix, Arizona, where he worked since June 1967. He was also closely associated with Arizona State University over most of this period, serving as an Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology. His Bachelor of Physics, Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy degrees are all from the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Idso is the author or co-author of over 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served on the editorial board of the international journal Agricultural and Forest Meteorology from 1973 to 1993 and since 1993 has served on the editorial board of Environmental and Experimental Botany. Over the course of his career, he has been an invited reviewer of manuscripts for 56 different scientific journals and 17 different funding agencies, representing an unusually large array of disciplines. He is an ISI highly cited researcher.[1]
LazyTeenager says:
February 1, 2011 at 1:30 am
Yep! a quick Google and these guys pop up famous as characters from think tank land.
I bet their web site has a logo which is professional, perfectly round and imitates the presidential style.

MikeEE

LazyTeenager
“No, there is more than one source of information.”
Thanks for the help. Without that I never would have known.
MikeEE

Mike McMillan

“A 30% chance that the bridge is out” on a road that has had no bridges in the past 4 billion years. Must be new math.
Analogies are fun.

DaveF

Mike 9:15
“If you were driving fast along a foggy road……”
I wouldn’t be driving fast in foggy conditions in the first place. Nor should anyone.

This is amazingly badly written:
“real-world observations fail to confirm essentially all of the alarming predictions ”
I think they mean “fail to confirm any of the alarming predictions.”