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

If indeed Mr Wirth does attend, you should consider turning the AC up really high as a sort of counter-staging 🙂
Orkneygirl missed out, in that long list, “shooting kittens”. Shame on her or him.
The fact that Freud defined denialism, and he died in 1939, will be equally lost on some regulars…
All the best – John
Now I see that Ted Turner is the founder and chairman of the UN Foundation. Mr
MirthWirth is its head.Ted Turner has urged world leaders to institute a global one-child policy to save the Earth’s environment. Ted Turner has only 5 children.
Ted Turner’s UN Foundation would like people to reduce their carbon emissions. Ted Turner flies around in his private jet. He wants us to live with less while he owns two million acres of land.
Read more abot the “The Thoughts of Chairman Ted”.
@ur momisugly Moderate Republican
“He is clearly saying refute, assert the actual science of climate science.”
Then he will jump at the chance on offer to do exactly that …. right?
last sentence huge shift in thought from global warming foundation etc
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/519/is-global-cooling-happening
In this day and age, having a politician promote your “cause”…
…is like the kiss of death
What happened, did save the whales turn him down?
Beans Means Heinz.
There have been a couple interesting articles lately which describe some of the root reasons for our current flooding and forest fires. This one describes the flooding of the Missouri:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html
And this one describes the fire in AZ and NM:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whos-to-blame-for-the-southwests-wildfires/
It appears CO2 had nothing to do with it. In fact these articles rather convincingly implicate environmentalists.
@Barry Foster Bellevelle is a law professor at a tiny remote coal town 4th tier school who teaches sustainability law, so he’s facing not just the green bubble but the law school bubble too! Ouch. To his credit, he has top student rankings, such as “cool dude” and “tough, fair and hot.” on RateMyProfessor.
A review claims: “Students at Appalachian spend nearly $48,000 a year for a 65 percent chance of employment within nine months of graduation. Many students will earn a salary that, even before taxes, would not sufficiently cover one year of attending law school. For even small-town lovers and mountaineers, the numbers alone should make students without substantial scholarship money wary about choosing Appalachian School of Law.”
Buzz, your lack of research science background excuses you a bit for not readily spotting the often jaw dropping defiance of climatology from the basic tenets of good science. Your post was so silly that I didn’t just ignore it but got curious about why you would willfully misstate weather trends. Dude, you’ve got a good gig going, beard and hiking trails included, so why are you acting like a troll on a skeptic’s blog? Your posts here, now that I’ve looked, typically drop a bomb that results in dozens of confused replies and a flame or two, but you don’t defend your original claim.
-=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
P.S. My last girlfriend of 17 years duration has her Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry and is now Google NYC’s senior AdWords attorney, having gone the patent law route back in the day, so I appreciate lawyers just fine, but also appreciate how divorced their outlooks can become from the fair rigor of hard science. She found my growing skepticism amusing, and enjoyed Crichton’s “State of Fear,” novel about AGW, but she wasn’t drawn into the real world case, since she hadn’t been hired to take one side or the other, I suspect, unlike it sounds like you have.
Theo Goodwin says:
June 25, 2011 at 9:14 am
I hope that Wirth shows up. If he shows up then maybe the media will cover the event. That would be a good test for the media. The media would find itself upholding Mickey Mouse against Einstein in a debate on gravity. The media would find itself upholding the slur “Denier” as it upheld the slur “parasite” in Germany in 1938. There remain many among us who could benefit from seeing the extent to which the media will lie to the public to support their extreme Left position.
———-
Your analogy to Mickey Mouse and Einstein is humorous but highlights my point that to really move this debate forward, it needs to be among equals, on neutral turf, as otherwise it only becomes circus side-show. The deck must not be stacked either way, by background or location. Mr. Wirth was foolish to say what he did, which is just one more indication that a debate of any sort between he and Anthony would just be a circus side show, if the goal is to move the discussion foward in a positive way as Judith Curry seems to be attempting.
Extraordinarily well done, Mr. Watts. You give me hope. But I still think we should keep our powder dry by getting good at CCS.
Ted Turner
Daddy Greenbucks
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_7_18/ai_83553863/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/jan/26/20020126-035117-3614r/
Just how brain dead is this gasbag? Even the stalwarts of the “consensus climate” community are running away from trying to blame the La Nina based weather patterns of this year on AGW. The massive fires in the Southwestern US owe their size not so much to the hot dry weather, as to decades in which proper forest management techniques have been rendered out of bounds by environmentalism driven by sentimentality rather than reason.
It would be nice to think that Sen. Wirthless, or more accurately Witless, would take up your challenge and show up to show everyone the error of their ways, but we have ample history of these CAGW dolts eagerly throwing down the gauntlet to the skeptical community then heading for the high cotton as soon as someone picks it up. Not that long ago it was James Cameron who wanted to shoot it out in the street with “deniers”. He even agreed to appear at a public debate on the climate but then immediately began adding conditions, only to cancel after his “denier” opponents had conceded to all of them so that the deck was completely stacked in his favor. Of course, we also have Algore, who not only will not debate, he won’t even allow anyone to ask him questions unless he can be assured that they will be the ultimate softballs.
Then you have the consensus blogosphere where you have an equal probability of being struck by lightening or winning a Powerball jackpot as you have of getting a tough question or critique through moderation.
I do respect the fact that you have chosen to respond with reasoned argument instead of angry vitriol to this foolishness, but I have lost all patience with these people. Ms. Jackson and the EPA are on the verge of setting in motion plans that will do almost incalculable damage to the economy and it is well past time that we quit treating these hypocrites as though they still deserved any kind of respect. The problem is of course that if anyone from the skeptical community ever acted toward them in a manner even approaching how they routinely behave toward us it would be treated as the second coming of Jack the Ripper by their comrades in the MSM.
Perhaps the only hope is that as their story has unraveled their response has become so over the top that it reeks with the stench of desperation so badly that even those who never thought to question the mythology of consensus have begun to smell it. Also as the EPA comes closer to actually enforcing their plans people are being forced to confront the reality of what all that nice warm and cuddly blather about our green and sustainable low carbon footprint future will really look like when it descends upon us. A world where energy and transportation are not only much more expensive but much less reliably available, where as a consequence almost everything else will be even more inflated, where, in the meanwhile, the high priests and priestesses of the Green Goddess will continue to flit from one garden spot conference to the next plotting ever more onerous regulations for the rest of us, while carefully exempting themselves from any of those bothersome burdens.
I’d like to believe that as reality rears its ugly head enough people will have maintained the capacity to be, not just annoyed, but outraged. However, judging by what has been transpiring here and in the UK, we may have past the one real tipping point in this entire climate fiasco. The point where the kudzu like growth of our bureaucratic dictatorships has passed beyond any possibility of a revolt of the electorate to reverse or even halt their spreading tendrils and tentacles from strangling the life out of our already shaky economies. I pray with all my heart and soul that I am entirely wrong about this, but unless the elections of 2012 turn into the biggest overturning upheaval in all of our history, the shear bureaucratic inertia of what is already in place will drag us into a future where we will look back on our present dismal economic stats with nostalgic longing. I see nothing in the present political situation which would suggest such an upheaval is even a slight possibility.
I spit out the above last night when I was in the frame of mind that Anthony described as his first reaction to this and after rereading it I hesitated to post it. However I recognize that many here, probably the majority, still cling to the notion that we can wait for the truth of good science to derail the all of this BS. I would suggest we don’t have time for that. Government programs once implemented are nearly impossible to eliminate and unless the incoming electoral class of 2013 is composed of a veto proof majority of people committed to the immediate reversal of the futile efforts at carbon demonization it will probably be too late to stop it before at least a decade has past. I seriously doubt that such a thing is achievable, but our descendants and our posterity deserve our best shot at it even if we go down like the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.
Dr. Dave says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:03 am
There have been a couple interesting articles lately which describe some of the root reasons for our current flooding and forest fires. This one describes the flooding of the Missouri:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html
And this one describes the fire in AZ and NM:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/whos-to-blame-for-the-southwests-wildfires/
It appears CO2 had nothing to do with it. In fact these articles rather convincingly implicate environmentalists.
——–
CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast. Those who don’t understand why, might want to study up a bit on the nature of nocondensing versus condensing GH gases. The real issue is not that CO2 affects our weather constantly, but rather how could the 40% greater amount of this GH gas we have now over preindustrial levels be affecting our weather patterns?
CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas, but the key issue is how sensitive is the climate to the 40% increase in the gas we’ve seen over a few hundred years?
And this particular gravy train has gotten so large the only way to stop it is take the tracks away. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/FY12-climate-fs.pdf
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast. Those who don’t understand why, might want to study up a bit on the nature of nocondensing versus condensing GH gases.
There is never anything less than an overwhelming majority of uncondensed condensing GHG in the atmosphere compared to co2. It’s easier to call it water vapour by the way. It forms part of the estimated average 12.9 gigatons of h20 in the atmosphere, which has sufficient variation in quantity and latitudial location weighting to turn the alleged extra co2 effect into noise on the graph.
The real issue is not that CO2 affects our weather constantly, but rather how could the 40% greater amount of this GH gas we have now over preindustrial levels be affecting our weather patterns?
When you consider how easily the alleged effect of the increase is obviously negated by natural variation (see last ten years surface temp) I confidently state “Not a lot”.
CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas
In Gatesland maybe, in reality, not so much
As the sun sets on the Great Global Warming Religion its adherents lash out in all angles. This anger stems from frustration and desperation at their utter failure.
Future academics will ask themselves how such a trace gas con could have fooled so many people? The answer lies in “follow the money”.
Gates says:
“CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day.”
Not really. “Everything” is alarmist exaggeration. Weather is affected by the sun, clouds, etc. And:
“CO2 is far more than a trace GH gas, but the key issue is how sensitive is the climate to the 40% increase in the gas we’ve seen over a few hundred years?”
Not really. CO2 is a trace gas, no more and no less. And the ‘key issue’ is: does increased CO2 cause global damage? Because if there is no harm, there is nothing to get alarmed about. And so far, there is zero evidence of any global harm from the rise in CO2. It’s still just a trace gas.
I live in Arizona and while we have had a large number of fires the major ones are all man-made disasters. That is they were set my man either via arson or carelessness. None thus far caused by lightning strikes. It is easy to blame the current bogey man (AGW) but it has nothing to do with it.
Here’s one quick summary of why CO2 is so critical to our weather every day due to it’s non condensing nature:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html
So I would ask AGA skeptics this: if you think the level of CO2 is pretty irrelevant to earth’s climate, on the downside, what level would we have to reduce it to before we’d start seeing effects? Ignore the fact that plants need it and just consider its GH properties.
If you say, with the exception of plants, that we don’t need it at all, you’ll need to explain what will keep the planet warm when all the water vapor condenses from a rapidly cooling planet.
Wirth is doing little more that trying to perform CPR on a rotting corpse. In an interesting alignment of timing, Walter Russell Meade published a blog titled “The Failure of Al Gore: Part 1” at The American Interest:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/
I can’t wait to see Part II.
BTW, chill out Anthony. Blowhards like Wirth won’t appear in any forum where they can’t control the narrative.
tallbloke says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:43 am
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast. Those who don’t understand why, might want to study up a bit on the nature of nocondensing versus condensing GH gases.
There is never anything less than an overwhelming majority of uncondensed condensing GH in the atmosphere compared to co2
———-
It is a matter balance between the two. Water vapor is more potent, but is squeezed out when temps cool. CO2 can act over a much wider range of temperatures because it is non condensing. Again, this article is a nice summary of the difference:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html
Ron House says:
June 25, 2011 at 6:05 am
Buzz Belleville, I have personally downloaded graphics from NOAA that show that just about every bad climate metric you can think of are near historic LOWS about now. I call you. You claimed they are becoming more frequent – give precise urls of the proofs please.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ron,
Buzz is a lawyer and actually makes his living litigating this nonsense. Lawyers don’t have to “prove” anything…they only need to convince a jury.
Mr. Wirth works right there is DC for Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation shepherding Ted’s more than $1 billion donation to UN causes. It would be easy for him to attend the Conference on Climate Change!
But it is so much easier to make bogus claims when there is no one around to challenge them.
The Foundation’s 2009 IRS Form 990 shows they gave away $117 million in grants, and had expenses of around $22.5 million. I guess it isn’t easy giving away Turner’s money, even to some of the corrupt programs run by that corrupt organization.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day. Take it away and we get cold…very cold, very fast.
———————————————–
Yesterday’s high where I live in Arizona was 97 and the Low was 60. When that ball of fire went down the temperature dropped 37 degrees. So while “greenhouse” play a role in temperature maintenance along with the oceans take away that fusion powered ball of energy 9 light minutes away and it will get much colder, much faster that the loss of CO2 will ever generate.