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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
356 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Gates
June 25, 2011 11:53 am

tallbloke says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:34 am
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.
———
Tim Wirth is not a scientist and is not qualified to make a scientific judgement about the effect of rising CO2 levels. But the core issue at hand is whether or not rising CO2 levels could be affecting the weather patterns. Mr. Wirth could be right, but not know the details as to why he is, or he could be wrong, but either way, the only meaningful debate that would not be a circus side show would be between two individuals who could scientifically state their reasoning in detail.
In regards to the role of CO2 as the master thermostat for the planet, again this summarizes it nicely:
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/atmosphere-and-surface/andrew-lacis-explains-how-the-co2-thermostat-works.html
Take away CO2, and we return to the ice-planet earth. It is far more than just a trace GH gas…

Ken Harvey
June 25, 2011 11:59 am

Back at the beginning of time the high priests learned that their forte was to preach. Debate was ruled out on day one.

hunter
June 25, 2011 12:00 pm

R. Gates,
That is all very fascinating, but did you really have nothing else to offer on a thread about a former Senator who now makes a good living promoting AGW hysteria making non-sane comments about skeptics.

pat
June 25, 2011 12:02 pm

Pamela Gray, an excellent point. Even if the CO2 ppm rises, the atmosphere is still static. Weather by definition is not, and requires huge heat differentials, i.e, cooling as well as transient heat.

tallbloke
June 25, 2011 12:03 pm

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:53 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:34 am
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.
[snip] irrelevance to my questions
Take away CO2, and we return to the ice-planet earth. It is far more than just a trace GH gas
So you’re not going to address my questions or points about your original claim that the increase in the trace gas co2 from 0.03% to 0.039% has affected modern weather patterns.
OK, bye.

John B
June 25, 2011 12:07 pm

Theo Goodwin says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:10 am
“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.”
And another company would spot the opportunity to offer a lower premium, thus attracting customers while still making money. That’s the free market at its best.

R. Gates
June 25, 2011 12:10 pm

Jimbo says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:38 am
R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 10:31 am
“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?”
You could also have asked:
How sensitive is the climate to future increases of man-made c02? This is the question at stake.
——-
This is all the same core question. How much, up or down, do you have to change CO2, to create an effect on the climate?
If you can accept the notion that non-condensing GHG’s, with CO2 being the primary one, are actually the earth’s thermostat (as far as the GH effect goes), then the question is really about the sensitivity of that thermostat. It is this question, discussed between two qualified scientists that held differing notions (i.e. Warmist and Skeptic) that would provide for an interesting debate.

R. Gates
June 25, 2011 12:20 pm

Tallbloke says:
“So you’re not going to address my questions or points about your original claim that the increase in the trace gas co2 from 0.03% to 0.039% has affected modern weather patterns.”
———-
Since I never made that claim it would be hard for me to address. I said CO2 affects all the weather all the time because without it, in addition to us starving, our planet would return to the ice-house earth. I never said the INCREASE would cause anything specific, but simply the mere existence of it must affect our weather, for we are not an ice planet, which we would be without CO2.

bjedwards
June 25, 2011 12:23 pm

[snip]

Steve Oregon
June 25, 2011 12:25 pm

Besides “bring it” there’s something else.
I think this is long over due considering the viral capabilities of today’s electronic age and social networking.
“revolutions in technology making worldwide reporting a nearly instantaneous event”.
I don’t think this has ever been attempted. And it should.
WUWT should provide a global Whistle blower’s Outlet, Protection and Defense Alliance to encourage academia & team insiders to reveal and expose the scoundrels and their shenanigans.
I suspect many whistle blowers are sitting on the edge of doing something but have no comfortable way of doing so.
What if WUWT could provide a variety of ways to assist whistle blowers to provide everything they may want to release:
A secured and confidential central electronic/e-mail destination/collection point.
Multiple, worldwide localized versions secured by WUWT participants.
Global locations to hand over hard copy evidence without any electronic back tracking. Also by WUWT participants.
All backed by the solidarity of the global participants of WUWT backing up and supporting whistle blowers.
IMO this kind of effort would encourage many to abandon the people and institutions unwirthy of
their continued participation.

Al Gored
June 25, 2011 12:27 pm

Look. It has already started! Aggressive, but very, very lame:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/06/25/anthony-watts-phony-selective-outrage/

Beesaman
June 25, 2011 12:30 pm

It makes one worry about the sanity of Mr Wirth, calling for some sort of jihad againt rational scientists because the disagree with his AGW religion. It’s bordering on hate speech agaist scientists.

R. Gates
June 25, 2011 12:31 pm

hunter says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:00 pm
R. Gates,
That is all very fascinating, but did you really have nothing else to offer on a thread about a former Senator who now makes a good living promoting AGW hysteria making non-sane comments about skeptics.
——-
I made my point that a debate between he and Anthony would be nothing but a circus side show. Not helpful in really getting at the issues. Wirth was stupid to say what he did, and Anthony was gracious to offer a debate. It would be entertaining and probably painful for fans of Mr. Wirth but would be just a summer day at the circus, with Mr. Wirth as the clown.

John M
June 25, 2011 12:35 pm

John B

If you really want to know the risks of various outcomes due to climate change, I would say that insurance companies are among the best people to ask.

Which raises the question, why have they ignored their own scientist’s peer reviewed publications, as pointed out repeatedly by Pielke Jr.? (See my previous comment)

And another company would spot the opportunity to offer a lower premium, thus attracting customers while still making money. That’s the free market at its best.

One would hope, although Munich Re has had a highly motivated sales force.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13454160

R. Gates
June 25, 2011 12:42 pm

Pamela Gray says:
June 25, 2011 at 11:12 am
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.
———
Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750’s. This basic point is not really in dispute. I “insist” on this figure because it happens to be the truth, and that’s very important to me.

Steve Oregon
June 25, 2011 12:46 pm

R Gates “painful for fans of Mr. Wirth”
It would be if any other AGW fool attended.
That’s why they hide and manipulate.
That’s why bloggers Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm have long been editing & doctoring posts, blocking comments, blocking rebuttals, allowing weaker comments and effectively cooking up entire debates to make them reflect winning arguments and the phony “robust” of the AGW movement.

Richard M
June 25, 2011 12:46 pm

Gary Palmgren says:
June 25, 2011 at 7:03 am
Oh wait, just in. Simple laboratory experiments show that an electrically heated tube of dry air will radiate more IR as the CO2 increases from 0 to 1000ppm. Therefore adding CO2 to the air will cause the atmosphere to radiate more and cool.

This is what I have called the “cooling effect” of GHGs. GHGs have both a warming and a cooling effect. Isn’t it strange that we’ve never heard the alarmists discuss the cooling effect.
BTW, I expect Wirth to be too Tim-id to show up. Big mouths are usually afraid to confront REAL people. They prefer to shout out and then run and hide.

Dr. Dave
June 25, 2011 12:56 pm

I see that others have stepped in and responded to R. Gates. His rather insipid question of how much CO2 we could do without and not freeze is meaningless. Most of the GHG effect of CO2 is realized at the very low concentrations. The temperature response is logarithmic. With increasing concentration of CO2 you get less temperature response. The real question is not what would happen with less CO2, it is what will happen with more. The answer is not very much. This has been demonstrated in the lab and is why we can estimate a theoretical temperature increase of about 1.2 deg C with a DOUBLING of CO2 concentration over pre-industrial levels. Dr. Roy Spencer estimates it would be something closer to 0.5 deg C in reality. What’s more, this “reality” is about 90 years away so I’m not going to worry about it. My grandparents didn’t worry about airline safety or emerging antimicrobial resistance in 1911 so I’m leaving a little extra CO2 to future generations to enjoy. If we leave them with a more very slightly warmer world and a more vibrant biosphere due to an atmosphere enriched with CO2 they can thank us. Until someone can prove a positive feedback with water vapor that idea will remain within the realm of mythology. You can’t claim what you can’t prove with empirical evidence.

tallbloke
June 25, 2011 12:58 pm

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:20 pm
I never said the INCREASE would cause anything specific, but simply the mere existence of it must affect our weather, for we are not an ice planet, which we would be without CO2.

I don’t know whether Earth would be an ice planet without co2. Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. It all depends on which assumptions you plug into models.

u.k.(us)
June 25, 2011 1:01 pm

IMO, Anthony makes a very important, in fact damning, point when he says:
“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?”
Now the former Senator wants to:
…”undertake an aggressive program to go after those who are among the deniers,”…
So, when deception doesn’t work, you turn to …. just what are you suggesting ?

June 25, 2011 1:06 pm

So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.

Editor
June 25, 2011 1:10 pm

“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. ”
What I don’t understand about the “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” argument is that currently the RSS Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly is barely above average:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Same with UAH Mid-Troposphere Temperature Anomaly;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/uah-midtrop-global-land-ocean/201105.gif
and UAH Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_20111.gif
Undoubtedly the recent drop in the Atmospheric Temperature is due to the recent La Niña event;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/
however, Former Senator Wirth’s argument appears to be that CO2 has warmed the atmosphere and this warming has caused “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires”. Since recent atmospheric temperatures have been around, slightly above or slightly below the 30 year average, then CO2 driven atmospheric warming cannot be the cause of the recent “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” Wirth claims. Wirth is lying about the “increases” and he is lying about the attribution of them.
Former Senator Wirth, can you please explain how CO2 has caused recent “increased drought, increased flooding, increased number of fires” including “increased flooding this last year, with the fires that have swept, raging through Arizona and western New Mexico and Texas” while atmospheric temperatures have been quite close to average?

June 25, 2011 1:32 pm

sceptical says:
“So what you are trying to say Mr. Watts is that the climate never changes? What a silly conclusion to draw from past weather events.”
You set up that strawman and knocked it right down.
If it weren’t for your projection, you wouldn’t have much to say. The fact is that the alarmist crowd are the ones who wrongly believe the climate never changed prior to the industrial revolution. That’s Mann’s straight hockey stick shaft. True scientific skeptics like Anthony, on the other hand, know that the climate has always changed.

June 25, 2011 1:45 pm

Mr. Watts is clearly saying that there has always been weather events and so nothing has changed. Climate can not change because there has always been and still is weather. A silly argument for Mr. Watts to make.

tallbloke
June 25, 2011 1:48 pm

R. Gates says:
June 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Don’t really understand why so many are not willing to admit that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased 40% since about the 1750′s.

You have (I hope) misunderstood Pamela’s point. Which was that you are avoiding the fact that co2 is a trace gas 40% of very little ain’t a lot. You are also persisting in trying to claim the secular rise in surface T since the Little Ice Age for co2, when you (hopefully) know that the vast majority of the increase in co2 took place after 1900.

1 7 8 9 10 11 15