UPDATE (Sunday 6/26 8:30AM): After choosing the quote of the week this week (see above here) I’ve come to the conclusion that former Senator Wirth is mentally incapable of debating the issue in a rational manner, would likely not respond, and thus there is no point in keeping this as a top post. – A
Former Senator Tim Wirth invoked the nuclear option yesterday. Small mushroom clouds are now appearing across the world as people read what he said. This is my response to him. It will remain the top post for the next few days or until Mr. Wirth responds to the offer made below.
I got the email about this bit of climate ugliness just after having dinner Friday night. I couldn’t do anything about it while I was driving home from Sacramento then, and it is a good thing, because it made me quite angry. The hour long drive gave me time to think about it and remember what the world was like before global warming supposedly made the weather worse.
First, let me remind everyone who former Senator Tim Wirth is. For that, we have to go back to June 1988. Dr. James Hansen is getting ready to testify before the Senate on what he thinks is a serious problem, global warming. The sponsor for Dr. Hansen? Senator Tim Wirth.
If we left it there, there would really be nothing to say beyond the fact that he’s the guy who put Hansen in front of the Senate and launched the cause. But Senator Wirth was culpable in foisting stagecraft onto the Senate to make them “feel” the problem in the form of a well crafted lie.
If any of you have ever been in Washington DC during the summertime, you’ll be able to relate to this. Senator Timothy Wirth made sure that room was “steamy”. This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]
Watch the Frontline video here. [UPDATE: The Frontline video has gone missing, but here it is on YouTube]
So it goes without saying, that if the case Dr. Hansen was to make before the Senate was so strong, why did Senator Wirth need to make use of cheap stage tricks?
And, why would anybody trust this man’s opinion on climate today, knowing this?
Well yesterday, the former senator insulted the Jewish race people with the tired old “denier” label, then set his foot on fire, then stuck it in his mouth trying to tell about half of the US population (according to recent polls) that he’s “coming after them” because they don’t share his opinion.
From CNS News, an extraordinary story coming out of a UN press briefing Wirth participated in, here’s the relevant portions:
Former Dem Senator: Climate Change Caused U.S. Floods, Fires; We Need ‘Aggressive Campaign To Go After’ ‘Deniers’
Friday, June 24, 2011
…
Sen. Wirth said: “Well, Barbara, that’s again, back to the major question we’ve been talking about. First, you and I know that while you can’t predict exactly from the climate models what’s going to happen, we know that the overall trend is going to be increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires – and we’re seeing exactly that sort of thing in the United States today with increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas, the kind of dramatic climate impact that we have seen in the United States already. Slowly but surely, people are going to connect the dots. They’re gonna’ understand that this is precisely the kind of significant change that has been predicted and that we’re slowly but surely seeing.
“Happily, there are people like those in, the weather forecasters who’ve come together, you know, into a major group to try to discuss and to understand the impacts and how to explain climate change and climate impacts when they’re doing the evening news and talking about the weather, which is where most people in the United States get their information. That’s going to be, I think over a period of time, an extremely important set of steps to take.
“We also have to do a better job of having the scientific community being able to explain what they’re doing and how they’re doing it and why they’re doing it in very clear terms that are understandable to 300 million Americans.
“Third, we have to, I think, again as I’ve suggested before, undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it. They’ve had pretty much of a free ride so far, and that time has got to stop.
Here’s the audio clip, Wirth’s remarks are at about the 3 minute mark.
==================================================================
I can’t print my initial reaction.
First let’s address Mr. Wirth’s claims of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”.
To do that, we have to assume his claim relates to Dr. Jim Hansen’s warning in 1988 that increased CO2 in the atmosphere from the then 350 parts per million, to the now 390 parts per million made the claim of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” happen.
Wirth probably isn’t familiar with the revolutions in technology making worldwide reporting a nearly instantaneous event. I address that issue here: Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective.
It seems like we get more of these things because news media and social media and people with cameras and cell phones are everywhere. Take for example the train crash today in the desert east of Reno, NV, which was covered mostly by citizens on the scene. Hardly anything escapes electronic notice anymore.
Second, Wirth’s hero, Dr. James Hansen, claims that we need to return to 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the Earth “safe” and avoid what Wirth claims we are seeing. An entire cult following has developed around this number, thanks to Bill McKibben and his 350.org eco-worriers.
That 350 number isn’t based on peer reviewed science. Hansen’s 2008 paper citing the 350 number was NOT peer reviewed, nor even published in a journal at the time. he just foisted it onto his website and a compliant press distributed it without question. No, that 350 number is based on the fact that was the value of CO2 when Jim Hansen and Wirth set this story loose in the Senate with the stagecraft. As Andy at NYT says “Back to 1988 on CO2, Says NASA’s Hansen“
1987 348.99 1988 351.44 1989 352.90 Source: ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
So if what Wirth says is true, we probably didn’t have much in the way of ” increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” back around the time of that magic 350 ppm number right?
Let’s have a look:
Drought:
The most severe drought in California’s history was the 1987-1992 drought. It is the drought Californians are most familiar with due to its recency and severity.
…
North America as a whole has experienced numerous droughts. When pioneers first began settling the Great Plains, they were told that “rain follows the plow.” However, it was an unusually rainy period. In the late 1880s drought struck and over half of the settlers lost their land. Many people are familiar with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the lesser drought of the 1950s. What many people don’t recognize, however, is that over the past 400 years droughts equivalent to the 1950s drought have occurred several times per century (Priest et al., 1993; NOAA Paleoclimatological Program, 2000).
Source: College of the Siskiyous
And it wasn’t just California, it seems India was hit hard in 1987, when CO2 was 349 ppm.
India’s Drought Is Worst in Decades
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, Special to the New York Times
Published: August 16, 1987
…
”I am 75 years old, and I have never seen anything this bad,” said Naufat Mohammed, a white-bearded farmer, looking at the cracked earth around a well. ”This is God’s will, but God is angry with us.”
…
The drought, which Government officials say is unprecedented in intensity, has already spread through most of the country, hitting hardest in the northern grain belts. There wells, reservoirs and water tanks are running at dangerously low levels or are already dry. Rain 75% Below Normal
No mention of CO2 or global warming in that article, they just blame God. It works just as well.
It seems the drought continued in the USA though summer 1988. Just a few weeks after Jim Hansen and Tim Wirth scared the bejesus out of a bunch of sweaty senators, Time Magazine put up this cover story:
Of course, in the US, drought was worse in 1934 when CO2 was at something around 290 ppm
The extent and severity of the driest year of the Dust Bowl in the United States, 1934
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000
====================================================================
Flooding:
One only has to look at Dartmouth’s 1988 Global Register of Extreme Flood Events to see that 1988 was a busy year in flooding globally while CO2 was at 350 ppm.
Bangladesh got the worst of it that year. Monsoon rains flooded about two-thirds of Bangladesh in 1988, killing nearly 5000 people and destroying farm animals and crops.
www.itnsource.com
But even though much of the USA had drought conditions in 1988 when CO2 was at a “safe” level of 350 ppm, there were still some significant flood events:
U.S. Floods of 1988
By C.A. Perry, B.N. Aldridge, and H.C. Ross of the USGS
Many areas throughout the United States were affected by drought conditions in 1988. There were few significant widespread floods. A few flash floods occurred during the summer months due to localized, intense rains from thunderstorms. Several flash floods occurred during the summer.
On April 1 and 2, southern Kansas received 3 to 7 in. of localized rain, which caused flash floods. New Orleans, Louisiana, received 7 to 9 in. of rain on April 1 and 2 . Severe flooding occurred, and $18 million in damages resulted. Albuquerque, New Mexico, had $3 million in damages as a result of flash flooding on July 5-9.
Tropical Storm Beryl hit Louisiana and Mississippi in early August. The storm brought as much as 15 in. of rain to coastal counties of Mississippi. Significant flooding occurred on the Biloxi River in Mississippi.
Hurricane Gilbert, the first category five hurricane to make landfall since 1969, struck Louisiana and Texas on September 15 through 19. The storm caused coastal floods in Louisiana and produced excessive rains across Texas and Oklahoma.
=====================================================================
Fires:
Well, who could forget the year of fires in 1988, especially at Yellowstone just three months after the Jim and Tim show before the Senate? The Yellowstone fires of 1988 together formed the largest wildfire in the recorded history of the U.S.’s Yellowstone National Park.
The Yellowstone fires of 1988 were unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service, and many questioned existing fire management policies.
California and Texas had major wildfires in 1988 too, with Texas having in March the Big Country Fire burning 366,000 acres. In 1988, while CO2 was at that “safe” 350 ppm level there was also the Great Lashio Fire, Lashio, Myanmar, with 134 killed , and 2000 buildings destroyed. I’ll bet Mr. Wirth, you never heard about that one.
===============================================================
So with all these horrible disasters happening in 1988 while Jim and Tim were turning off the AC and opening windows in the Senate hearing room to get all those senators hot and bothered over global warming at 350 ppm of CO2 concentration, the world went on as usual with droughts, fires, and floods, just like it is doing today.
But our former senator Wirth “knows” that the present batch of drought, floods, and fires are caused by that 40 parts per million increase since 1988. Those same events in 1988 must have had another cause because CO2 was at the “safe” 350 ppm level back then.
So Mr. Wirth, I call BS on your statement, and in my opinion, your opinion on the matters of “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” is what I would describe as not grounded in historic reality, or henceforth to be known as wirthless.
And yet, you say “…as I’ve suggested before,undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers, who are putting out these mistruths, and really call them for what they’re doing and make a battle out of it.
Alrighty then. Mr. Wirth, let me give you the perfect venue by which to challenge skeptics, a “target rich environment” if you will. It’s right in your old stomping grounds in Washington DC, so it should be no trouble for you.
Next week, on June 30th and July 1st, hundreds of skeptics, including me, will be in Washington for a conference.
6th International Conference on Climate Change: June 30-July 1
The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1, 2011 at the Mariott Wardman Park, 2660 Woodley Road NW. Timothy Ball, Ph.D., Larry Bell, Ph.D., Robert “Bob” Carter, Hon. FRSNZ, Steve Goreham, S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. are among the confirmed speakers.
STANDING OFFER TO TIM WIRTH:
Federal and state elected officials can attend ICCC6 for free, but I’m sure Heartland will also open that offer to you as a former elected official.
I’m the first session speaker on June 30th, and to give you ample opportunity to tell the worldwide skeptic community what your plan is to “go after” us and “make a battle of it” I yield my 15 minutes to the former Democratic Senator from Colorado.
I’ll sit quietly and respectfully during that 15 minutes sir, and then it will be our turn to tell you what we know.
Mr. Wirth, this offer is genuine.
If your intent is genuine, bring it. I’ll expect to see you there, as you won’t find a better venue or opportunity to make good on your threats. You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it. I predict though you have not the intestinal fortitude. Prove me wrong.
You can contact me at this web link, or contact Heartland directly here. Given their longstanding policy of inviting the opposition, I’m certain they’ll work to make it happen and I’ll gladly assist.
– Anthony Watts
@ur momisugly Moderate Republiwhatever
I asked Mr. Wirth what HE “is clearly saying”, not for your irrelevant interpretation. And I never said I was oppressed; your tactic of using quotation marks to confer that upon me is laughable.
@Barry Foster:
Maybe you’ve just got your ‘eye’ well trained to see significance in any weather event that bolsters the AGW hypothesis. I can understand that: a degenerate gambler will see good luck in any hand he’s dealt, even, or espiecially, as his chips run out. Not to imply for a second that you have a gambling problem, but you, like most ‘warmists’ have a need to see validation in the AGW hypothesis at every possible opportunity, either for deep seated psychological reasons, or sometimes just for a career in easy-answer pseudo science. No harm in that really, just don’t expect vague assertions on ‘global weirding’ to get much traction amongst an audience of mostly critical thinkers.
Regards,
J Burns
oh my Lord…..a 40% increase, a huge increase since the 1700’s
.028 to .039 ……….. point, zero……….
40% of nothing is still nothing…………..
If CO2 is that powerful, a .01 increase controls the weather/climate….
….if we’re in danger of overheating the planet at 390 ppm
How is it possible that the planet crashed into an ice age when CO2 was 2-4000 ppm?
to JJB MKI,
“Not to imply for a second that you have a gambling problem,”
But that is exactly what the AGW and all the cap and trade, carbon tax stuff is !!
It is spending OUR tax money in the hope of affecting the future. And the returns are going to be far less than the lottery ticket, because the whole issue is based on a hypothesis that is proving time and time again to be incorrect. The only outcome from all this spending will almost certainly be a negative one, certainly from an economic and living standard point of view, because it is all such a totally waste of money on expensive, ineffective, inconsistant energy supply systems.
A money black-hole !! (except for those in on the game, like Gore and many climate (so-called) scientists.)
250 comments in 15 hrs.
I wonder how many page views in the same time period.
Latitude says:
June 25, 2011 at 4:46 pm
oh my Lord…..a 40% increase, a huge increase since the 1700′s
.028 to .039 ……….. point, zero……….
40% of nothing is still nothing…………..
If CO2 is that powerful, a .01 increase controls the weather/climate….
….if we’re in danger of overheating the planet at 390 ppm
How is it possible that the planet crashed into an ice age when CO2 was 2-4000 ppm?
——
Hey Latitude,
Not bad, not bad at all.
Thanks, you made my Adirondack saturaday OK.
John
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body….
Aha, so it’s begging the question right off – remember, too, “the physics” of CO2 that works “just like” gravity, QED? – then promptly on to per cent increases, whereas large per cent increases and decreases of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 have apparently not done much of anything to atmospheric temperatures, and the Earth has never died from anything , nor even once yet! Currently, it doesn’t have any physical signs of any disease related to recent per cent increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations – which have instead been correlated with the lowest Accumulated Cyclone Energy ever recorded, as well as with very low historical cat. 4-5 hurricane numbers. Cause and effect, Gates, from those large per cent increases of CO2 concentrations?
And, Gates! Just when I’d thought you had foresworn scaremongering and also had agreed that China was acting rationally in its production of nearly as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible as a by product of its need for energy so as to cure the diseases it has due to underdevelopment.
Gates, it’s you who needs a check up.
@Orkneygal:
June 25, 2011 at 3:12 am
Brilliantly put, thanks. It’s sad that AGW hysteria from the media and the jaws of bloviating activists has turned environmentalism into a narrow political cause and utterly eclipsed the genuine environmental and humanitarian concerns you list, and that they are being treated with a contempt or indifference they don’t deserve by many on both sides of the argument.
If somebody claimed that smoking 60 cigarettes a day from age 15 to 60 would have no harmful health consequences, I would be able to point to a large number of studies, all with high levels of statistical significance, that point to the contrary. I would not need to resort to calling them deniers, the overwhelming evidence would show them to be deluded. It would not need any careful telling to get the message across.
If somebody claimed that only a few thousand Jews died in Nazi “resettlement camps” in WW2, I would be able to point to thousands of witness statements (from survivors, camp guards & others), newsreels, documentary evidence from Nazi files and the circumstantial evidence of the missing millions) that point to the contrary. I would not need to resort to calling them deniers, the overwhelming evidence would show them to be deluded. It would not need any careful telling to get the message across.
Yet when people claim that we must take drastic & immediate to prevent catastrophic global warming, they resort to calling people deniers as a first resort. The “evidence” that is presented is highly circumstantial, along with outputs of computer models that nobody has the courage to term “forecasts”. The best evidence that is provided – that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more of it warms the planet – is a bit like equating a petty thief to a serial killer.
I live in Britain. In the past when a political campaign failed disastrously, the politicians would admit to failure and resign – or at least slope off quietly. In recent years when they have failed catastrophically at the ballot box, they just say “we failed to get our message across”, then try to get re-elected. The difference is that many politicians have become so “on message”, they cannot recognize the truth, or rejection any more.
kadaka said,
“Is there something about Climate Science™ that once a pronouncement is made it becomes timeless and unchanging?”
yep, its referred to as “settled science”.. note that climate science is the ONLY branch of science in which this term is defined. 😉
“R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Percentages matter greatly.”
I do not agree that this is always the case. Let us suppose there is a certain greenhouse gas that we will call X which is 100 times more potent than CO2. Let us suppose further that its concentration was 1 part per trillion in 2000 but now has reached 1 part per billion in 2011. You could then truthfully say that an extremely potent greenhouse gas increased in concentration by 100,000%! Would it be meaningful? Not in my opinion.
John B says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:15 am
Talkbloke said: “How much gets “squeezed out”?”
Answer: Pretty much all of it.
Without non condensing GHGs like O2 to support the GHE, temperatures would fall, water vapour would condense, temperatures would fall some more, and so on.
Now you are saying that water vapor is not a ghg. CO2 = CAGW supporters say the same thing as atmospheric temperatures rise – “the concentration of water vapor is dependent solely upon atmospheric temperatures” – unless CO2 is present, at which point water vapor then magically starts to act like a ghg and increases the theoretical CO2 warming effect, or the “sensitivity” of atmospheric temperatures to the effect, on and on according to their own “the physics”, so that……”we’re all gonna die!”.
But under that logic, which also ignores heat loss due to the hydrological cycle, we should have already “died”.
Alicia Frost says:
June 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Geez I was just being super sarcastic….Just predicting LOL.
Someday, yes, you might be right. In the meantime I fear you just don’t understand Zombies!
Unfortunately Mr Wirth is emblematic of the decline of The USA. Egotistical, corrupt, inbred wank*rs running their own race but under the banner of “all of us”. Show us your science Wirthless, not your impotent venom.
regards
Bravo Anthony! You did that with facts, with class, and with confidence. Anyone want to bet on Wirth taking you up on your offer?
Werner Brozek says:
June 25, 2011 at 5:23 pm
“R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Percentages matter greatly.”
I do not agree that this is always the case. Let us suppose there is a certain greenhouse gas that we will call X which is 100 times more potent than CO2. Let us suppose further that its concentration was 1 part per trillion in 2000 but now has reached 1 part per billion in 2011. You could then truthfully say that an extremely potent greenhouse gas increased in concentration by 100,000%! Would it be meaningful? Not in my opinion.
====================================================================
Werner, excellent analogy…..
Don’t let it slip by you that Gates is starting in 1700, a 40% increase since 1700
1700 was around 280 ppm — that’s .028 — and the middle of the Little Ice Age.
What he’s really saying is .028 was the Little Ice Age, and we are .039 now…..
…and that .011 puts us in some serious danger of over heating…………;) LOL
Mr. Watts, do you really “know” that droughts floods and fires are just continuing along as always (the climate is not changing)? How do you “know” that weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed? Do you really “know” that past weather events prove these things?
Anthony: well done. This bloviating a,,hole needs to have his butt kicked, but he’ll never show up to comment or debate.
All the rest of you: R. Gates is an idiot, along with Skeptical, Moderate Republican and John whatever (and the now completely defrocked and humiliated Buzz Whosit). Why don’t we just completely ignore their stupidity?
Zero chance. Maybe less than zero.
@ur momisugly sceptical:
re “do you really “know” that droughts floods and fires are just continuing along as always (the climate is not changing)? How do you “know” that weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed? Do you really “know” that past weather events prove these things?”
I’ll take a whack at this one, if Anthony doesn’t mind.
You ask, “Can we know that droughts, floods, and fires are continuing along as always?” That’s not the right question, as it is irrelevant. A better question is, Since droughts, floods, and fires have occurred many times in the past, long before CO2 rose in the industrial age, what caused those events? And, once that question is answered, can we rule out that cause (or causes) as the reason for the current events? If someone can provide scientific evidence that the modern events are out of the ordinary, then perhaps one can look to a different cause compared to long-past events.
One might start the inquiry by assembling the data for such events from the past, especially the frequency, and any trend that may be found. Then, compare those frequencies and trends to the current data. Only if the current frequency and trend are out of the ordinary will there be any cause to look at a different cause. Perhaps that cause will be CO2. (By the way, such an analysis has been performed for tropical cyclones, and the current trend is downward. There are fewer events and total cyclone energy is less. See the excellent work by Dr. Ryan Maue at Florida State University.)
For my money, it is patently obvious that nothing of current events, droughts, floods, and fires, are out of the ordinary. For example, how many civilizations in modern times have disappeared due to prolonged droughts?
As to weather patterns never changing, and climate not changing, of course they change. There are, for just one example, remains of petrified logs in the desert Southwest of the US. Apparently, the climate changed rather dramatically in that area. And, it should be noted, that was long before any CO2 was placed into the atmosphere from the industrial revolution and following.
Sceptical, that was fun. Would you like to play again? Perhaps ask some more questions? There are many, many commenters here on WUWT that can knock such questions out of the park.
tallbloke says:
June 25, 2011 at 3:32 pm
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Our atmosphere is a balanced system, more like a human body than like counting weeds in your yard. A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.
Ah, now this is much more like it. R. Gates understanding is more advanced than I realised. But he needs to know it’s not just a balanced atmosphere, but an atmosphere in balance with the hydrosphere and biosphere. As such he is also certain to appreciate the IPCC admits a low level of scientific understanding when it comes to the effect of solar variation, particularly in the UV part of the spectrum, on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere, and the biology of the ocean surface.
So he will agree with me that for the IPCC to account only for the raw wattage of the suns output additive terms, and ignore the effects of it’s variation on atmospheric and oceanic inorganic and organic chemistry makes it’s claimed certainty levels on attribution of warming to human emission of co2 a fictional nonsense.
Won’t you R. Gates?
———
IPCC projections and GCM’s do not yet fully take into consideration the either the UV effects on the upper atmosphere nor of course the GCR/cloud effect as neither of these are known quantities. Even if and when they are, I seriously doubt the anthropgenic effects related to CO2 will ever be seen as fictional nonsense. CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.
Wow this guys sucks and Jewish people are the best I have no idea what he must be smoking…..
sceptical,
Get a grip. Stop your pathetic rephrasing or interpreting what Watts is saying and making up asinine things he never said.
You’ve already been chided for your silly straw man stunt.
There isn’t a single person here who has ever claimed “(the climate is not changing)” or that “weather patterns have never changed and therefore the climate has never changed”. Certainly not Watts.
So asking him how he knows something he never claimed is adolescent and annoying.
You are either an inept fool who hasn’t been able to grasp that essentially every skeptic believes that weather patterns and climate have always been changing or you are a dishonest nitwit.
Now is there anything real you want to question?
How about you? I’d like to hear what makes you think any of the current weather events (changes) are anything more than weather events (changes) in the past 100s or 1000s of years and have nothing to do with CO2?
If all you’re going to do is parrot the list of events don’t bother
Navy Bob says:
June 25, 2011 at 5:54 am
Bring it on Wirth. You’ll find out why we have the second amendment.
=========================
Hell yes to that, Navy Bob!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.
If you say, with the exception of plants, that we don’t need it at all, you’ll need to explain what will keep the planet warm when all the water vapor condenses from a rapidly cooling planet.
=====================
Absolute complete utter insane NONSENSE.
Nobody….NOBODY…is saying anything close to your hyperbole.
I mean…really R….how ‘clever’ do you really think you are?
And, on the flip side, how stupid do you mistakenly think we are?
Your points are so outlandish and foolish they don’t even deserve to be responded to.
But, because you are an incessant glutton for punishment (you know…wedgy time)…I even hesitate to bring it up.
Thanks as always for the laugh.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA