Bring it, Mr. Wirth – a challenge

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

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

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

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

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/hansen_1988_congress.jpg?w=640
Dr. James Hansen testifies on global warming, June 1988

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, June 24, 2011

By Michael W. Chapman

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can’t print my initial reaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1987   348.99

1988   351.44

1989   352.90

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

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

Let’s have a look:

Drought:

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

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

Source: College of the Siskiyous

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

India’s Drought Is Worst in Decades

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, Special to the New York Times

Published: August 16, 1987

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

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

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

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

Time, July 4th, 1988 CO2 at 350 ppm

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

The extent and severity of the driest year of the Dust Bowl in the United States, 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STANDING OFFER TO TIM WIRTH:

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

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

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

Mr. Wirth, this offer is genuine.

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

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

– Anthony Watts

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
356 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JJB MKI
June 25, 2011 8:17 pm

@sceptical
June 25, 2011 at 7:01 pm
As he’s a meteorologist, I’d say odds-on Anthony Watts has never, nor will ever profess to “know” that weather patterns or climate have never changed. That’s some ability to project you’ve got going there. It’s really worth reading the article Anthony links to in this post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/19/why-it-seems-that-severe-weather-is-getting-worse-when-the-data-shows-otherwise-a-historical-perspective/
And hopefully you’ll feel reassured that, despite journalists lazily trotting out tedious alarmism every time the wind blows, we are not heading towards the apocalypse. Or maybe you’ll feel disappointed? I can never tell with warmists.

savethesharks
June 25, 2011 8:27 pm

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 2:51 pm
A 40% increase of certain compounds in your body, even if the actual ppm or even ppb are small, can mean a huge difference in how your body functions. Percentages matter greatly. This is basic science and those who have studied any basic chemistry or biological systems know this.
======================================
Uh huh….and a 40% increase in deep atmospheric moisture may…or may not…have an influence on my chance of normal diurnal summertime thunderstorms where I live.
And they may bring a 40% chance of storms….or they may bring less than 0% chance.
Your pathological obsession with this “40%” increase of what is DEFINITELY a trace gas…has you barking up the wrong tree (with a shrill, persistent, yippy, ankle-biting bark)….and putting all of your eggs (though very fragile)…in one flimsy, noodley basket.
Why not explore the other 99.99% of the natural sciences?
Or are you already pre-convinced?
I thought so. Groupthink disorder is alive and well.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

savethesharks
June 25, 2011 8:35 pm

savethesharks says:
June 25, 2011 at 8:13 pm
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects?
==========================
Oh and by the way. The magic number is at the bottom level, at about 150 ppm.
Plants cease photosynthesis at about here.
The last glaciation approached 180 ppm.
That number is a little more grave and profound…than that made up “350” nonsense number…..the subject of which, the last time I checked…is a little bit more ON TOPIC than your hijack of this thread.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Policyguy
June 25, 2011 8:45 pm

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

Darren Potter
June 25, 2011 8:52 pm

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

Joshua
June 25, 2011 9:08 pm

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

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

Moderate Democrat(not really, i just like to pretend)
June 25, 2011 9:11 pm

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

Andy in Alberta
June 25, 2011 9:17 pm

If it looks, sounds & smells like fascism…….

JPeden
June 25, 2011 9:17 pm

R.Gates:
CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.
Repeating a Mantra/”the physics”, begging the question, appealing to imagined fact in an absence of facts proving the question, then trivializing the question, oops, except perhaps that a significant per cent increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has apparently both quelled ACE and reduced the frequency of higher category Hurricanes according to your own logic, Gates?
The ER’s in the U.S. are open 24/7 and you don’t have to pay up front or, technically, even say how you will pay or if you are unable to pay, to get evaluated.

philincalifornia
June 25, 2011 9:21 pm

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 7:42 pm
CO2 is too important a GH gas to be able to vary by 40% without some effect on the climate system.
==============================================
I think there’s purportedly a consensus on that, and even 97% of climate scientists apparently agree with you.
So why is it that you and the 97% can’t spend 20 f**ing minutes typing up, for the world to see, in simple bullet points, what is the “some effect” ??
……. after 30 years of research and hundreds of millions of research dollars spent, not to mention the billions of dollars in “transaction” fees stolen !!!!!
(Don’t you ever look in a mirror and ask yourself why you can’t do it ??)

NikFromNYC
June 25, 2011 9:27 pm

This thread is a verbal [snip] festival of tossers. So is Judith Curry’s passive-aggressive site. At least Watts is finally suggesting egomaniac Monckton may be a liability who oft too lazily adds Gore-level “credibility” to the cause of restoring hard science to it’s proper place in society.
Here, one radio clip of some tired grumpy old fanatic having a shaky handed kiniption suddenly becomes a Coward vs. Hero Death Match, just because a weatherman blogger got all testy about it? Well I temperamentally scoff at spectator sports enthusiasm too, especially in venues with no hot women around, but something in my discomfort bothers me intellectually to: that in-group primal screaming seems to act as a balme and passifier instead of a call to individually creative activism.
I’m expressing this very personally, so read between the lines as needed.

Moderate Republican
June 25, 2011 9:29 pm

Boar Breath says June 25, 2011 at 6:35 am “The warmists are panicking because they are not able to sell their fraud. The so called wild weather has been addressed by NASA here”
Did you read that link? “Global warming is certainly happening,” asserts Patzert…”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/24jun_wildweather/

J. Felton
June 25, 2011 9:41 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 25, 2011 at 3:58 pm
“……..R. Gates’ link leads to a paywall for Lacis10. Willis’ post’s link to the paper went dead. Google found the paper, but for possible legal reasons, as can be seen by the address, I want to check if it’s okay to post the link. Feel free to snip if it’s not:”
* * *
Brilliant work Watson!
While reading the paper cited, another familar name ( of stomach-turning familiarity, anyways,)
stood out as the second researcher on the paper.
” Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt* , David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy”.
Looks like our Faux-Climate friend has been busy.

J. Felton
June 25, 2011 9:48 pm

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

Moderate Republican
June 25, 2011 9:51 pm

savethesharks says June 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm “Your pathological obsession with this “40%” increase of what is DEFINITELY a trace gas…has you barking up the wrong tree (with a shrill, persistent, yippy, ankle-biting bark)….and putting all of your eggs (though very fragile)…in one flimsy, noodley basket.”
You seem awfully fixated with R. Gates – maybe because his point is a simple and elegant one. A 40% increase in a forcer is going to have an impact. Lovelock said it elegantly as well “You can’t put something like a trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without something nasty happening.”
And please don’t launch into the typical Smokey “but we don’t have proof” non-sense.
The only proof you’ll die jumping off a bridge is doing it and dying from it, does that mean you’ll tell your kids “sure, jump off the 20 story tall bridge on to the pavement because I don’t have scientific proof you’ll die”? Word games – or confirmation you don’t understand the basics if the science you try to criticize….

KenB
June 25, 2011 10:17 pm

manicbeancounter says:
June 25, 2011 at 5:22 pm
“In recent years when they have failed catastrophically at the ballot box, they just say “we failed to get our message across”, then try to get re-elected. The difference is that many politicians have become so “on message”, they cannot recognize the truth, or rejection any more.”
Manic, you have just succinctly described our Prime Minister Julia Gillard who spouts carbon “pollution” and saving the planet, selling her rehearsed carbon tax mantra at every opportunity. “truth” does not come into her vocabulary. Its like watching a puppet show – seems we all suffer from these authority crocks who believe their own political spin.

NikFromNYC
June 25, 2011 10:29 pm

“This hoax”…”we will be heard”…”we will not be silent”:

F. Ross
June 25, 2011 10:52 pm


Tom in Florida says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:52 am
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
“CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. ”
Please explain the daily temperature range in deserts.

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

TomB
June 25, 2011 10:58 pm

Richard111 says:
June 25, 2011 at 5:10 am
A comment above made me think. Why hasn’t any AGW proponent attempted to put their case here? They would have direct access to a very wide audience of umm.. doubters?

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

June 25, 2011 10:58 pm

For those debating R. Gates, good on you for pointing out his half truth’s and unsubstantiated claims. If I may however, please allow me to point the debate in a slightly different direction. Were we to simply accept R. Gates claim at face value, and put it in proper perspective, we’d see that even if correct, his claim is worded in such a fashion as to misrepresent that facts and create a perception that many of those not familiar with the terms of reference and basic physics that they imply would fall for.
R. Gates asks, that if CO2 is as insignificant as skeptics suggest, how low would it have to go before it would be “too low” and the temperature drop associated would be a disaster. In essence he is correct. Significantly less CO2 would in fact result in a temperature decrease (provided that doing so did not trigger any secondary changes that compensated). This is classic misdirection. He has used a completely true argument in a completely disingenuous fashion.
The issue is not how much the temperature would drop if we had less CO2, the issue is how much would the temperature rise if we had more. To the uninitiated, it would seem like those are simply equal, but opposite effects. They are not.
Sensitivity is never quoted as “degrees per parts per million” of CO2 for a reason. It is quoted as “degrees per CO2 doubling” by the most ardent of warmists and skeptics alike. In brief, a 40% decrease in CO2 from a given starting point has a completely different “number of degrees” associated with it compared to a 40% increase from the same starting point.
The following is illustrative. Let us presume a starting point of 280 ppm, and a current concentration of 380 ppm. Let us further assume that we can attribute a change in global temperature to that 100 ppm increase of 0.5 degrees C. This is how R. Gates and the alarmists tell the absolute truth, and a total lie at the same time:
280ppm + 100ppm = 380 = +0.5
280ppm – 100ppm = 180 = -1.0
180ppm – 100ppm = 80 = -2.0
So…a decrease of 200ppm from 280 would be a total of -3 degrees. But if we go up instead of down, we see that increasing the amount of CO2 becomes increasingly….meaningless.
280ppm + 100ppm = 380 = +0.5
380ppm + 100ppm = 480 = +0.25
480ppm + 100ppm = 580 = +0.125
580ppm + 100ppm = 680 = +0.0625
So, while -200ppm gives us -3.0 degrees, +400ppm gives us only +0.9375 degrees.
This is the heart of the alarmist claptrap, and I’ve seen enough of R. Gates posts to suggest that he knows it. CO2 has been increasing at about 2ppm per year for the last several decades. If we accept that 100% of the warming we have seen since 1920 when the industrial age began producing signiifcant consumption of fossil fuel, we would expect that over the next 150 years we would see no more than an additional 0.44 degrees. And in 300 years at that rate..only 0.22 more than that.
The warmist hysteria revolves completely around misdirection. A major decrease in CO2 would in fact be a potential disaster. But once one gets to 400ppm, further increases are…
As meaningless as R. Gates insistance that he is 75% warmist and 25% skeptic.

Larry in Texas
June 25, 2011 11:07 pm

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

janama
June 25, 2011 11:32 pm

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

June 25, 2011 11:32 pm

Joshua says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:08 pm
You may find though, that skeptics won’t threaten you back, but will engage you in a factual discourse if you are up to it.
Yeah – they’ll engage you in a factual discourse…well, when they aren’t comparing you to Nazis, Stalinists, Eugenicists, etc. (And Anthony, I’m glad that you voiced object, but some 50% of your readers didn’t.)
===========================================================
Joshua, it is an unfortunate turn of events, the vitriol is horrendous in the larger global climate discussion. But, it was brought on by the warmists. After decades at attempts for civil discourse about the issue, many have given up on the idea it can happen. Josh, I don’t know how long you’ve been involved in the climate discussion, but many of us have been at it for several years, and only very recently have we had forums where we can all gather and put forth our ideas and thoughts. Until recently, we’ve been subjected to every form of derisive insult one can imagine.
Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that much of the suggested actions taken are both anti-democratic and and anti-capitalism. (Historically, when suggested courses of action were both, we’ve seen some form of totalitarian socialism.) But that’s for another time.
It doesn’t help when there are no shouts from the warmist side to quit attempting to label us “anti-science”, paid by oil, deniers, flat-earthers and worse. You don’t like the words you’re being label with? Quit embracing them. If some pinhead suggests skeptics should be tattooed, correct him. If a bunch of moronic imbeciles believe its a good idea to make a snuff film killing skeptics, go after them. Until something like that happens, unfortunately, you’ll be identified as being supportive of such tactics. To quote from a film, “I say, don’t start none, there won’t be none.”—- or something to that effect.
Best wishes,
James

Amino Acids in Meteorites
June 26, 2011 12:05 am

There is always a large number of fires on the earth every year. It is part of normal cycles in nature.
Cyclical fires on Earth from 2000 to 2010 as detected using Terra and Aqua satellites:

Ian
June 26, 2011 12:05 am

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