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

Gates,
So now you’re climbing down from your assertion that “CO2 has everything to do with the weather everywhere on this planet every day”?
Sure, it affects the temperature. And that’s a good thing, isn’t it? But that’s not the question. The question is: will CO2 cause global catastrophe? Or even any global harm. The complete lack of evidence says No.
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.
Typical warmist bait and switch. You invited us to discuss the extra 40%, not the baseline 50%.
Answer our points first please.
Show me the peer reviewed evidence. I have shown you mine here. Also, you must have missed the references that Anthony gave for better observation.
DirkH said: “Go ahead and show me that Munich Re has not a vested interest in climate alarmism. I am eager to see your line of argument.”
OK, I’ll have a go.
The insurance industry puts huge amount of effort into understanding risk. They do that in order to be able to offer premiums that are high enough that they can make money, but low enough to be competitive. They cannot afford to kid themsleves because they operate in a reasonably free market. Let’s say an insurance company kidded themselves that 18-year-olds are as safe drivers as 60-year-olds, and therefore offered equal premiums to each group. They would go bust because that premium will either be too cheap for the 18-year-olds and they won’t make enough money to cover the claims or too dear for the 60-year-olds and they won’t attract any customers. So, they have to understand the risks as best they can and price premiums accordingly. So it is with climate. If insurance was a monopoly, they could bump up the premiums and blame global warming, but it is not. Munich Re and each of its competitors needs to understand the real risks of climate change in order to settle on premiums that are high enough to cover claims (and make a profit) but low enough to be competitive. The insurance company that does this best will be the most successful.
If you really want to know the risks of various outcomes due to climate change, I would say that insurance companinies are among the best people to ask. But ask by looking at their premiums rather than their publicity.
Bio SENATOR TIMOTHY E. WIRTH
“Timothy E. Wirth is the President of the United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund . . .”
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
/andrew-lacis
Lol. Back to models so quickly?
Speaking of fraud. I apologize if this has already been tackled in this forum:
Nature Magazine.
“Italian authorities and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in Brussels, Belgium, have confirmed that they are prosecuting members of a large network accused of pocketing more than €50 million (US$72 million) in EC grants for fake research projects. In Milan, Italy, the Finance Police last month charged several individuals in relation to the fraud. In Brussels, meanwhile, the EC has terminated four collaborative projects in information technology, and excluded more than 30 grant-winners from participation in around 20 ongoing projects. Investigations are still under way in the United Kingdom, France, Greece, Austria, Sweden, Slovenia and Poland.
“We don’t have any records of [previous] fraud at such a scale,” says David Boublil, the commission’s spokesman for taxation, customs, anti-fraud and audit. While investigations continue, Italian prosecutors and OLAF will not disclose the names of the suspects, or the research projects with which they were involved.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110615/full/474265a.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110616
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:49 am
Here’s one quick summary of why CO2 is so critical to our weather every day due to it’s non condensing nature:
———————————————————-
It has gone from being a climate driver to a weather driver. Interesting. We have been chastised by the likes of you for the better part of two decades not to conflate weather and climate.But you feel free to conflate the two.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:56 am
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.
How much gets “squeezed out”? Does it reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere from “completely overwhelming co2” to “Very nearly completely overwhelming co2”? Or not that much?
tallbloke says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:01 am
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.
Typical warmist bait and switch. You invited us to discuss the extra 40%, not the baseline 50%.
Answer our points first please.
———
This makes no sense. The sensitivity of the climate to changes in CO2 levels is THE central question of the AGW debate. Asking AGW skeptics how low it can go before we’d start seeing cooling effects is hardly a “bait and switch”. Skeptics seem to think this trace GH hardly matters at all, so again, how low can we go with it? (ignoring the fact that the food chain would collapse without it)
John B writes:
“If insurance was a monopoly, they could bump up the premiums and blame global warming, but it is not.”
You left out the part about the insurance companies being smart enough to detect a wave of hysteria that they can ride to higher prices. No conspiracy, no dirty dealing, just good sense enough to see that there is ample support among the populace for ranking the risk higher than they might have otherwise.
While CO2 is responsible for less than 25% of the greenhouse affect (and I think around 14% but correct me if I’m wrong), the % rise in PPM, not % rise in the gas itself, is the metric you Gates are blind to. You also seem particularly blind to the amount of energy needed to sweep away one pressure front for another.
Changes in weather is an evergy intensive phenomenon, something meterologists are schooled in as they use this knowledge to predict when the next system will arrive. The mathematical calculations of that change require FAR more energy than what the increase in %ppm CO2 can produce.
That you insist on the 40% figure reveals your lack of understanding and instead, your use of a fall back talking point.
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.
——————————————————-
Foolish argument. We can’t just ignore the fact that plants need it. Are you suggesting that plant cover doesn’t affect albedo and thus climate and weather. Also, lower it below the partial pressures needed to sustain photosynthesis in phototrophic organisms and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
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. It’s a feedback. Eventually a new equilibrium witll be reached, but with no CO2 it would be much lower and water vapour would also be much lower.
Anthony, please invite Jeff Masters also. He has been attempting to connecting weather dots with his climate change pen recently. Unsuccessfully, if I may add.
I suppose with the recent massive kyoto exodus, it is time for desperate measures!
tallbloke says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:09 am
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:56 am
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.
How much gets “squeezed out”? Does it reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere from “completely overwhelming co2″ to “Very nearly completely overwhelming co2″? Or not that much?
———-
Of course as it gets colder, and more water vapor is condensed out, we pass through the point where their effects are about equal to the point where CO2 is the main GH contributor. Again, read this for a nice summary:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html
I think it would be good if Mr. Wirth[less] were to write, in longhand, 1,000 lines:
“I must not have the audacity to insinuate that my superiors, such as Mr. Watts, should tolerate such diabolical asininity, designed to give scientific verisimilitude to such an insignificant insect as myself.”
Preferably he should do this every night before his prayers.
chemman says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:13 am
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.
——————————————————-
Foolish argument. We can’t just ignore the fact that plants need it. Are you suggesting that plant cover doesn’t affect albedo and thus climate and weather. Also, lower it below the partial pressures needed to sustain photosynthesis in phototrophic organisms and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
——–
Again, why do skeptics hate this question? We are simply trying to establish the range of sensitivity of the climate to CO2 levels. Skeptics seem to think the climate won’t be affected much by the 40% increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries, so I’m simply trying to see how low they think we could go without seeing any climate effects. Why is this so hard?
Gates, your article is behind a paywall. Media reports (th link you gave) are notoriously incorrect and usually reinterpret the original research way beyond its limits.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:18 am
Of course as it gets colder, and more water vapor is condensed out, we pass through the point where their effects are about equal …
What surface temp does that happen at?
Are we still talking about contemporary weather or are we talking about ice ages again?
Do not mention the arctic in this thread or you will be snipped for off topic baiting.
You could also have asked:
How sensitive is the climate to future increases of man-made c02? This is the question at stake.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
John B says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:15 am
[snip]
Irrelevant to Tim Wirth’s claims about weather.
niteowl says: June 25, 2011 at 8:32 am
And to think that without the Donna Rice Monkey Business, this guy had a realistic shot at being President.
Uhhh…. I think you are thinking of Gary Hart, the senator that Wirth replaced when he declined to run again in 1986. It was the Monkey Business incident that ended Hart’s 1988 presidential campaign. To the best of my knowledge, Wirth never entertained Presidential ambitions.
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.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:27 am
“Skeptics seem to think the climate won’t be affected much by the 40% increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries”
Whew, for a moment I thought you had forgotten to put in your favorite Gatesism.
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:27 am.
Skeptics seem to think the climate won’t be affected much by the 40% increase we’ve seen over the past few centuries,
Bzzzt. Nearly all that change has been in the last century. Stop trying to claim the secular increase in T since the little ice age for co2. It won’t wash here.