Human shadow etched in stone from Hiroshima Atomic blast.These stone steps led up to the entrance to the Sumitomo Bank Hiroshima Branch, 260meters from the hypocenter. The intense atomic heat rays turned the surface of the stonewhite, except for a part in the middle where someone was sitting. The person sitting on the steps waiting for the bank to open received the full force of the heat rays directly from the front and undoubtedly died on the spot. The building was used for a time after the war. When it was rebuilt in 1971, these steps were removed and brought to the museum. Source: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum
Why comparing global warming to the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb is ridiculous
Some days, you just have to laugh. That’s what we’ll have to do today after reading the latest ridiculous scare story from cartoonist turned pseudo-psychologist now elevated to ‘climate scientist’ John Cook from the antithetically named ‘Skeptical Science’ website.
He’d like people to think the effect of global warming is as powerful as the effect of an atomic bomb, but as we’ll see, it is another one of those scare by scale stories where you grab some iconic image from the public consciousness and use it to make your issue seem bigger than it really is. For example, in 2010 normally calving glacier ice was compared to Manhattan Island to give it scale: Oh no! Greenland glacier calves island 4 times the size of Manhattan
Now, the same trick is being used by John Cook to try to scare people, because what could be more scary than getting vaporized by an Atomic Bomb? It just goes to show the depths of desperation used to try to sell the public on a problem that isn’t getting much traction.
Humans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other time in history, says John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
“All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean … our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second – consider that going continuously for several decades.”
Whoa, four Hiroshima bombs every second. How scary is that? Well not only is it not an original idea by Cook, compared to the amount of energy received by the Earth from the biggest fusion bomb in our solar system, our sun, it hardly registers a blip.
“…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”
That’s 278 atomic bombs worth of energy every minute – more than four per second — non-stop. To be clear, that is just the extra energy being gained each day on top of the energy heating our planet by 0.8 degree C. It is the rate at which we are increasing global warming.
Let’s do the numbers. First, let’s convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isn’t quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
Hansen says increase in forcing is “400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day”, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
To convert Hansen’s figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres … which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre … in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre … we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
What a 0.6 watt light bulb might look like when turned on.
So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb in a standard Edison base such as at right, with 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.
Could you even see its output?
And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?
Note the figure on the Earth that I highlighted in yellow: Surface imbalance 0.6±17
That’s an uncertainty of 17 watts, or if you prefer Hansen-Cook parlance, 4 Hiroshima Atomic bombs an uncertainty of ±113 Hiroshima bombs every second.
The ±17 watts uncertainty of the 0.6 watt surface imbalance is two orders of magnitude larger than the claim! But, activists like Cook say global warming will “Cook’ us for sure.
Hmmm. Something bigger is needed to keep it scary. How about comparing Hiroshima bombs to the biggest fusion bomb in the solar system, the sun? From our article:
The Hiroshima bomb released ~ 67 TeraJoules (TJ) = 6E13J. source
The earths circular area is 3 * (6E6m)^2 = 1E14m2.
The suns TSI is ~ 1kW = 1E3 J/s, so the earth gets ca 1E17 J/s on the sunlit side, so the sun explodes about 1E17/6E13 = 1E3 Hiroshima atomic bombs on this planet EVERY SECOND.
(h/t to bvdeenen)
Gosh, a thousand Hiroshima bombs exploding on this planet every second? How frightening! With that sort of threat, one wonders why Obama isn’t going to announce taxing the sun into submission next Tuesday.
These calculation just go to illustrate that in the grand scheme of things, not only is the global energy associated with global warming small, it isn’t even within the bounds of measurement certainty.
Da bomb, it isn’t. Time to ‘Cook’ up a new scare story.
Here’s the funny thing though, as Donna Laframboise points out, in addition to the laughable statement that Cook plagiarized from Hansen above, somehow the amazing “postdoctoral fellow” without a PhD has somehow been elevated to the status of “climate scientist” by the French in a recent article. Climate Change Likened to Atom Bomb by Scientists.
Although that article talks about “climate scientists” it names and quotes exactly one person – Cook himself. Moreover, the claims here are nothing short of fantastical. It says that climate scientists
have given figures of rising and changing climate. These figures are almost like a warning that states that escalating temperatures are equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs in a week.
They’ve completely attributed the condition to human actions.
It’s clear that this reporter’s first language is not English, so I’m sure she has misunderstood. No official document of which I’m aware has declared humans 100% responsible for current temperature trends (see, for example, the discussion here).
UPDATE: Jo Nova also has a essay on the subject here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-exponentials/
FYI my email was originally set up for discussions with young earth creationists, who also take a contrary view to the vast majority of scientists on their topic. I do feel it was inappropriate of the moderator to violate my privacy. This severely undermines any credibility this site has.
[your privacy hasn’t been violated, the full email isn’t given, just the relevant part. Nobody knows your name or where or live or your full email address. – no whining then -mod]
Rational person
July 1, 2013 10:15 pm
How hard is it to try a few of the popular mail sites until the address is found? Regardless, the comment was irrelevant and inappropriate for a moderator.
[no it isn’t easy to find, it was tested before hand to make sure the question wouldn’t violate privacy. It looks like it was just setup for the purpose of comment here. You are of course welcome to leave at any time, nobody is forcing you to make snide comments here using a fake name. You got off on the wrong foot by calling people names here, you want respect, give some -mod]
Backslider
July 1, 2013 10:25 pm
@Rational Person – “However do you dispute that this graph shows a temperature increase since 1996?”
Yes, I do dispute that. You see, I am able to look at it as a rational person, as are most scientists, while you seem unable to. A rational person would say “Of course if we begin before the big spike its going to show the green line as a slight upward slope, however what is INTERESTING is the number of years after the spike which show a cooling trend.
It is this cooling trend which interests people on both sides of the AGW debate – why does it not interest YOU?
The graph actually does show a cooling trend since 1997…. believe it, or don’t believe it.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 10:29 pm
My point is that why would you, a moderator, go to the trouble of breaking the blog’s own rules to deliberately “test” that you could get away with posting an irrelevant personal attack based on my email address? You say my choice of email was somehow a setup to obtain a comment. How could that be when I had no expectation anyone would see it?
As moderator, your job is to prevent people from making such comments, not to make them yourself. The fact that you even hinted at my email address and took “testing” steps to justify your post is a huge abuse of moderator power. I am betting you would NEVER do that to Backslider, for example.
The post was irrelevant and inflammatory and frankly I deserve an apology.
[no, you don’t get to decide how to apply the rules here, especially when your first post began with insults – if you want to comment here, earn the privilege by not treating everyone as if they have to bend to your will – mod]
Rational person
July 1, 2013 10:41 pm
Ok backslider, despite the graph, you say there was no increase since 1996 and instead choose to use a starting point in 1997 that IS in a spike. What is your scientific justification for picking that date? What is so special about 1997 other than that was the date in some old news articles? Why not use 1999 after the local 1997/98 spike was over?
I also noticed you never did address my 1980s question. Why was that decline “temporary” while the current one is “permanent”? What scientific evidence do you have that the models are wrong given that the evidence shows that he models are performing better than expected?
You can’t cherry pick one year or use a statistically insignificant short series of observations to say something is true when the facts don’t support your claim.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 10:46 pm
How did my first post start with insults? Because i used the “D” word? (A word used as commonly in the press as “warmist”). Since I understood you took offence at that haven’t I been working within the rules?
Besides, is your position really going to be “I don’t like you so I can break my own rules”?
Face it, you overstepped your bounds as a moderator by using knowledge about my email address that only moderators can look up and making that the content of a public post. That is inappropriate no matter what blog it is.
[your email address appears to be another insult made specifically for commenting here. your demeanor here is condescending as well. you aren’t going to get far here without some attitude change on your part, and again, you haven’t been harmed, a portion of your email address was used that appears insulting to ask a question, your privacy is intact, only your pride has been bruised. either move on to a topic or move out. -mod]
Backslider
July 1, 2013 10:54 pm
@Rational Person – “What is your scientific justification for picking that date? ”
It is not I who picked the date – this is the date that all leading scientists on both sides of the AGW debate have picked. It is the decline since then that they are discussing.
Your 1980’s graph is only six years – we are talking 16 years, which all scientists agree is statistically significant.
Rational person
July 1, 2013 10:57 pm
[snip – we are done here with your personal issues, move on to a topic or move out -mod]
Rational person
July 1, 2013 11:02 pm
“All scientists agree is statistically significant”, yet not significant enough to invalidate the climate change models …
Backslider
July 1, 2013 11:07 pm
@Rational Person – ” Why was that decline “temporary” while the current one is “permanent”?”
Please show to the World exactly where I have used those terms……????
Unlike the IPCC, I am not into crystal ball gazing. There are significant things in nature that affect our climate… things that the IPCC chooses to ignore, things which many warmist scientists choose to ignore. There are however many scientists who study these things in a proper scientific manner – I read an interesting article the other day on a new study on how cosmic rays affect our climate – real science, not the tosh we get from the IPCC and their ilk.
The fact is that all of the IPCC models have now been thoroughly falsified by actual temperature data. That is the wonderful truth which is so unpalatable to you.
You should understand that climate models, like any model are not of themselves science – they are merely tools which scientists can use to help them – real science must be subject to verification by experiment. If it cannot be, then it is not science.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
Rational person
July 2, 2013 5:32 am
I will agree with you … Once the models actually have been falsified. The truth is that not only have the models NOT been falsified, but they haven’t even strayed out of their 90% confidence interval yet. So if you look ONLY at verification by experiment, the only conclusion you can make is that so far the models are accurate. To say anything otherwise is premature and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the models work.
R Person:
As a matter of fact, climate models have been falsified. All of them were wrong. No exceptions [click in chart to embiggen].
When 100% of the predictive models are wrong, then the original premise [in this case, CO2=CAGW] is deconstructed and falsified. You are arguing exactly like the creationists you hate, but you cannot see it due to your emotional cognitive dissonance. And your endless threadbombing here does not help your cause, nor does it make your argument valid. It is simply a juvenile tantrum, due to the fact that you are not getting your way with the rational adults here.
You have not provided one iota of testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that CO2 is the basic cause of global warming — which is an entirely natural fluctuation in the planet’s temperature, and which has gone on in exactly the same way whether CO2 was low, or high. Unless you can falsify the Null Hypothesis, none of your arguments hold water.
Backslider
July 2, 2013 12:29 pm
@Rational Person – “The truth is that not only have the models NOT been falsified, but they haven’t even strayed out of their 90% confidence interval yet.”
Ummm, yes, they have been falsified. They are now outside all of the “confidence intervals”. That you choose to believe and approve falsified graphs is your own prerogative, however that does not make them right. The only people remaining who refuse to believe this fact are rusted on CAGW believers. Ask yourself this: Why are warmist scientists discussing the fact that the model predictions have FAILED? I will urge you yet again to step into the real world, look around you, take the time to honestly study the things you so vehemently argue. Seek the truth, not what you think is right. Try yourself to falsify your own beliefs – therein is true science.
Even the alarmist scientist contingent is admitting that there is global cooling: Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has….”
__________
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
__________
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
[Courtesy of Jimbo, from another thread.]
Note that the first Phil Jones comment is from 2005 — seven years ago. Since then, the planet has continued to cool. Facing facts is difficult. But if it is not done, the alarmists on this thread look increasingly ridiculous. They are furiously digging, when they should instead be re-assessing their former convictions and beliefs. [Lookin’ @ur momisugly YOU, ‘Rational Person’.]
Rational person
July 3, 2013 6:34 pm
Lol
Do your arguments are stolen emails taken out of context and complete misinterpretation of the graphs.
THE OBSERVED DATA IS STILL COMPLETELY WITHIN THE 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL OF THE MODEL PREDICTIONS. thus the predictions have not failed.
If this really is a “science” site then you better learn to read graphs and understand statistics.
Rational person
July 3, 2013 6:36 pm
Of course, the final act of all pseudoscience sites. Can’t argue the facts, so censor the dissenters.
Rational person says:
“…the final act of all pseudoscience sites. Can’t argue the facts, so censor the dissenters.”
On this we can agree. That is why SkS, RealClimate, Tamino, and similar alarmist blogs routinely censor skeptics’ comments: they are alarmist pseudo-science blogs.
OTOH, this site has just won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site award for the third year running. Because WUWT does not censor [that does not mean you will not be snipped if you violate site Policy, which you have a habit of doing]. [Note that SkS withdrew its name, knowing that it would be stomped by WUWT. They got no huevos.]
WUWT has plenty of site traffic because it does not censor opposing points of view, like most alarmist blogs do. Readers can make up their own minds as to what is good science, and what is self-serving propaganda. The result is more site traffic than the top three climate alarmist blogs combined. They could turn that around — but it would require adopting WUWT’s no-censorship policy. They are not willing to do that, so they remain thinly-trafficked echo chambers populated by a handful of head-nodders agreeing with each other. How boring.
Finally, what “stolen” emails are you referring to? With a charge like that, produce your evidence. And your continuing complaint about data-based graphs still ignores the fact that the NY Times, the Economist, and even Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. Sorry yoiu can’t see that. Your blindness is caused by cognitive dissonance.
Backslider
July 3, 2013 8:03 pm
@Rational person – Could you please point me to the experimental science which shows that CO2 causes global warming?
I thought not……..
Btw here are the original (unattributed) sources for the graph In the article above from the original researcher”s blog.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/updated-comparison-of-simulations-and-observations/#more-1104
FYI my email was originally set up for discussions with young earth creationists, who also take a contrary view to the vast majority of scientists on their topic. I do feel it was inappropriate of the moderator to violate my privacy. This severely undermines any credibility this site has.
[your privacy hasn’t been violated, the full email isn’t given, just the relevant part. Nobody knows your name or where or live or your full email address. – no whining then -mod]
How hard is it to try a few of the popular mail sites until the address is found? Regardless, the comment was irrelevant and inappropriate for a moderator.
[no it isn’t easy to find, it was tested before hand to make sure the question wouldn’t violate privacy. It looks like it was just setup for the purpose of comment here. You are of course welcome to leave at any time, nobody is forcing you to make snide comments here using a fake name. You got off on the wrong foot by calling people names here, you want respect, give some -mod]
@Rational Person – “However do you dispute that this graph shows a temperature increase since 1996?”
Yes, I do dispute that. You see, I am able to look at it as a rational person, as are most scientists, while you seem unable to. A rational person would say “Of course if we begin before the big spike its going to show the green line as a slight upward slope, however what is INTERESTING is the number of years after the spike which show a cooling trend.
It is this cooling trend which interests people on both sides of the AGW debate – why does it not interest YOU?
The graph actually does show a cooling trend since 1997…. believe it, or don’t believe it.
My point is that why would you, a moderator, go to the trouble of breaking the blog’s own rules to deliberately “test” that you could get away with posting an irrelevant personal attack based on my email address? You say my choice of email was somehow a setup to obtain a comment. How could that be when I had no expectation anyone would see it?
As moderator, your job is to prevent people from making such comments, not to make them yourself. The fact that you even hinted at my email address and took “testing” steps to justify your post is a huge abuse of moderator power. I am betting you would NEVER do that to Backslider, for example.
The post was irrelevant and inflammatory and frankly I deserve an apology.
[no, you don’t get to decide how to apply the rules here, especially when your first post began with insults – if you want to comment here, earn the privilege by not treating everyone as if they have to bend to your will – mod]
Ok backslider, despite the graph, you say there was no increase since 1996 and instead choose to use a starting point in 1997 that IS in a spike. What is your scientific justification for picking that date? What is so special about 1997 other than that was the date in some old news articles? Why not use 1999 after the local 1997/98 spike was over?
I also noticed you never did address my 1980s question. Why was that decline “temporary” while the current one is “permanent”? What scientific evidence do you have that the models are wrong given that the evidence shows that he models are performing better than expected?
You can’t cherry pick one year or use a statistically insignificant short series of observations to say something is true when the facts don’t support your claim.
How did my first post start with insults? Because i used the “D” word? (A word used as commonly in the press as “warmist”). Since I understood you took offence at that haven’t I been working within the rules?
Besides, is your position really going to be “I don’t like you so I can break my own rules”?
Face it, you overstepped your bounds as a moderator by using knowledge about my email address that only moderators can look up and making that the content of a public post. That is inappropriate no matter what blog it is.
[your email address appears to be another insult made specifically for commenting here. your demeanor here is condescending as well. you aren’t going to get far here without some attitude change on your part, and again, you haven’t been harmed, a portion of your email address was used that appears insulting to ask a question, your privacy is intact, only your pride has been bruised. either move on to a topic or move out. -mod]
@Rational Person – “What is your scientific justification for picking that date? ”
It is not I who picked the date – this is the date that all leading scientists on both sides of the AGW debate have picked. It is the decline since then that they are discussing.
Your 1980’s graph is only six years – we are talking 16 years, which all scientists agree is statistically significant.
[snip – we are done here with your personal issues, move on to a topic or move out -mod]
“All scientists agree is statistically significant”, yet not significant enough to invalidate the climate change models …
@Rational Person – ” Why was that decline “temporary” while the current one is “permanent”?”
Please show to the World exactly where I have used those terms……????
Unlike the IPCC, I am not into crystal ball gazing. There are significant things in nature that affect our climate… things that the IPCC chooses to ignore, things which many warmist scientists choose to ignore. There are however many scientists who study these things in a proper scientific manner – I read an interesting article the other day on a new study on how cosmic rays affect our climate – real science, not the tosh we get from the IPCC and their ilk.
The fact is that all of the IPCC models have now been thoroughly falsified by actual temperature data. That is the wonderful truth which is so unpalatable to you.
You should understand that climate models, like any model are not of themselves science – they are merely tools which scientists can use to help them – real science must be subject to verification by experiment. If it cannot be, then it is not science.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
I will agree with you … Once the models actually have been falsified. The truth is that not only have the models NOT been falsified, but they haven’t even strayed out of their 90% confidence interval yet. So if you look ONLY at verification by experiment, the only conclusion you can make is that so far the models are accurate. To say anything otherwise is premature and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the models work.
R Person:
As a matter of fact, climate models have been falsified. All of them were wrong. No exceptions [click in chart to embiggen].
When 100% of the predictive models are wrong, then the original premise [in this case, CO2=CAGW] is deconstructed and falsified. You are arguing exactly like the creationists you hate, but you cannot see it due to your emotional cognitive dissonance. And your endless threadbombing here does not help your cause, nor does it make your argument valid. It is simply a juvenile tantrum, due to the fact that you are not getting your way with the rational adults here.
You have not provided one iota of testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that CO2 is the basic cause of global warming — which is an entirely natural fluctuation in the planet’s temperature, and which has gone on in exactly the same way whether CO2 was low, or high. Unless you can falsify the Null Hypothesis, none of your arguments hold water.
@Rational Person – “The truth is that not only have the models NOT been falsified, but they haven’t even strayed out of their 90% confidence interval yet.”
Ummm, yes, they have been falsified. They are now outside all of the “confidence intervals”. That you choose to believe and approve falsified graphs is your own prerogative, however that does not make them right. The only people remaining who refuse to believe this fact are rusted on CAGW believers. Ask yourself this: Why are warmist scientists discussing the fact that the model predictions have FAILED? I will urge you yet again to step into the real world, look around you, take the time to honestly study the things you so vehemently argue. Seek the truth, not what you think is right. Try yourself to falsify your own beliefs – therein is true science.
Even the alarmist scientist contingent is admitting that there is global cooling:
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has….”
__________
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
__________
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
[Courtesy of Jimbo, from another thread.]
Note that the first Phil Jones comment is from 2005 — seven years ago. Since then, the planet has continued to cool. Facing facts is difficult. But if it is not done, the alarmists on this thread look increasingly ridiculous. They are furiously digging, when they should instead be re-assessing their former convictions and beliefs. [Lookin’ @ur momisugly YOU, ‘Rational Person’.]
Lol
Do your arguments are stolen emails taken out of context and complete misinterpretation of the graphs.
THE OBSERVED DATA IS STILL COMPLETELY WITHIN THE 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL OF THE MODEL PREDICTIONS. thus the predictions have not failed.
If this really is a “science” site then you better learn to read graphs and understand statistics.
Of course, the final act of all pseudoscience sites. Can’t argue the facts, so censor the dissenters.
Rational person says:
“…the final act of all pseudoscience sites. Can’t argue the facts, so censor the dissenters.”
On this we can agree. That is why SkS, RealClimate, Tamino, and similar alarmist blogs routinely censor skeptics’ comments: they are alarmist pseudo-science blogs.
OTOH, this site has just won the internet’s “Best Science & Technology” site award for the third year running. Because WUWT does not censor [that does not mean you will not be snipped if you violate site Policy, which you have a habit of doing]. [Note that SkS withdrew its name, knowing that it would be stomped by WUWT. They got no huevos.]
WUWT has plenty of site traffic because it does not censor opposing points of view, like most alarmist blogs do. Readers can make up their own minds as to what is good science, and what is self-serving propaganda. The result is more site traffic than the top three climate alarmist blogs combined. They could turn that around — but it would require adopting WUWT’s no-censorship policy. They are not willing to do that, so they remain thinly-trafficked echo chambers populated by a handful of head-nodders agreeing with each other. How boring.
Finally, what “stolen” emails are you referring to? With a charge like that, produce your evidence. And your continuing complaint about data-based graphs still ignores the fact that the NY Times, the Economist, and even Phil Jones all admit that global warming has stopped. Sorry yoiu can’t see that. Your blindness is caused by cognitive dissonance.
@Rational person – Could you please point me to the experimental science which shows that CO2 causes global warming?
I thought not……..