Climategate

[DuncanONeil]

Yes the same Nat Geo. But how is this a problem?

As for the rest of your quotes. I'm not going to hissy. However, for my money, way too many of those in the AGW camp are to ready to insist that AGW is a fact even when the data can make it suspect. I just finished reading about Trop and Strat temperature variations. The author was confused that there was not a readily discernable corelation between the two but then went on to say that does not change the fact of AGW.
Virtually everything readily available in support of AGW seems to take the same tack. AGW is a fact and the data will be made to support that fact! At least that is the way it reads.


The same National Geographic that is saying this on thier website?

"Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.

We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon.

What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountains—hangs in the balance.

Greenhouse effect

The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse.

First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, “greenhouse” gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.

Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth.

Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.

Aren't temperature changes natural?

The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone.

However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally absorbed. As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to develop within a consistent climate.

Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El Niño, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles.

Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades.

Why is this a concern?

The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted back and forth between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.

As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006."

PS: Here is a link in case anyone decides to have a hissy over the quotes authenticity.


http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html

[tedteague]

considering earth is about 3,000 years past due for an Ice Age, I think its safe to say nobody really knows. Besides, I'd rather live on a boat than under a glacier

[leo9]

I really shouldn't have left this thread on email alerts, I keep getting dragged back to it when I should have given it up. Because what can you say to comments like

considering earth is about 3,000 years past due for an Ice Age, I think its safe to say nobody really knows.Or in other words, considering that there is more than one theory about climate, even though the other theories' predictions have not come true for a century and the AGW predictions have consistently come true for the last fifty years, we can still point to the other ideas to claim nobody "really" knows. On that basis, so longs as the Flat Earth Society still exists (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm) one can argue that nobody really knows the world is round.

Meanwhile, along with NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=43306 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=43083, the US Geological Survey and the Pentagon, we now have to add to the ranks of the AGW conspiracy that well known organ of state socialist propaganda, the Economist: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14966227 Since it's a magazine for the rich, that's a paying link, but if you aren't interested enough to pay to know exactly what they think there are plenty of blogs with a summary.


In 97 years we humans have effected the entire planet so much that we've changed global climate???? Oddly enough, that's what an increasing number of paleogeologists think, to the point of changing the textbooks to say so: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326101117.htm But of course you already list the world's geologists among the conspirators. Thank goodness we've got tabloid journalists to tell us why all these different scientific disciplines are wrong.


Government, lately ANY Government is of the opinion that what they "know" and "believe" is of more import than anything anyone else knows!

What can one say? Pot... Kettle... Oh, never mind.

I admire your strength for staying with this, Denu, I couldn 't face it. I'm off out again.

[lucy]

Even if man-induced global warming is (were, since i think all the scientists have it quite right) just a possibility, the implications and effects are so huge that it still would be smart to do everything we can do prevent it from getting any worse.

Alas, i'm a pessimist when it comes to believe in collective learning. Well, learning might be possible, but not acting accordingly.

[denuseri]

What can I say Leo...I may not be a pain slut per say, but I am one determined slave with a maso-streak..lol.

And regardless of weather it is warming or cooling(which despite all the hoopla and back and forth) ....the real main issue is...(imho of course)...the ceasassion of harming our enviroment (not to mention each other) and using up all the unrenewable rescources while we try to live together on the only planet in the freaking solar system that we can actually live on without being in space suits 24/7 ...before it is in fact too late for not only our posterity, but ourselves.

[tedteague]

Leo, thats not even remotely the same. I'm not getting my information from some random guy. I'm getting it from Bill Bryson, a respected author from a highly esteemed book. Denu, you're quote that temperatures change regularly is also not correct.
The trend indicates that Earth is under a mile of ice way more than its not. Its actually a 25 to 1 ratio. You get these big freezing 25 MILLENIA long ice age, with a few brief period of warm teperatures that don't last much longer than 10,000 years. So theres that . . .
Second of all, Mount St. Helen threw more dirt and crap and gas into the air in the 80s than humans have in the last 200 years, and Vesuvias (spelling?) lowered the Earths temperature for the 50 years following it killing everyone
Finally, we know the facts they present are A LIE plain and simple.

[TantricSoul]

Just a reminder from your "friendly neighborhood moderator" to play nice.

There are many "experts" who disagree on this topic, I find it unlikely that we "armchair quarterbacks" are likely to be able to determine what/who is or isn't "correct" "lying" "ignorant" etc.

So please lets keep it civil as I have enough work to do already.
Thank You in advance for your cooperation.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[Thorne]

There are many "experts" who disagree on this topic, I find it unlikely that we "armchair quarterbacks" are likely to be able to determine what/who is or isn't "correct" "lying" "ignorant" etc.

While probably quite true, it's important to know which experts agree and which do not. If nine doctors tell you that you're dying and one lawyer says that you're not, which should you believe?

The AGW controversy is somewhat like this. A very large, and growing, majority of those who have spent their careers studying climatology (experts) agree that AGW is happening. A large majority of those who oppose AGW have not spent their careers in this field, and therefore cannot be considered experts in that field! My money is with the climatologists.

[DuncanONeil]

But the AGW "predictions" have not been that accurate. In fact the penultimate Global Warming supporter at East Anglia himself has said there has been no warming in the last 12 - 15 years.
Added to that is data showing that the planet is in fact cooling.


I really shouldn't have left this thread on email alerts, I keep getting dragged back to it when I should have given it up. Because what can you say to comments like
Or in other words, considering that there is more than one theory about climate, even though the other theories' predictions have not come true for a century and the AGW predictions have consistently come true for the last fifty years, we can still point to the other ideas to claim nobody "really" knows.

[DuncanONeil]

But that then gives rise, again, to the question; "what is the proper temperature for the planet?"


Even if man-induced global warming is (were, since i think all the scientists have it quite right) just a possibility, the implications and effects are so huge that it still would be smart to do everything we can do prevent it from getting any worse.

Alas, i'm a pessimist when it comes to believe in collective learning. Well, learning might be possible, but not acting accordingly.

[DuncanONeil]

There are as many non experts on one side as the other. All that does it make it all harder to decide.


While probably quite true, it's important to know which experts agree and which do not. If nine doctors tell you that you're dying and one lawyer says that you're not, which should you believe?

The AGW controversy is somewhat like this. A very large, and growing, majority of those who have spent their careers studying climatology (experts) agree that AGW is happening. A large majority of those who oppose AGW have not spent their careers in this field, and therefore cannot be considered experts in that field! My money is with the climatologists.

[steelish]

There are as many non experts on one side as the other. All that does it make it all harder to decide.

And many of those who "agree" stand to gain significant funds by "agreeing"

[steelish]

When the information about Mr. Jones of East Anglia came out it was not widely reported. I checked there was noting about his faults on ABC, CBS, AP, CNN, or any of the other mainstream outlets!

Of course not. Those are the media outlets who support the current "regime" and will gain by supporting the claims.

[steelish]

Try reading this (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/ten-global-warming-myths/)

[lucy]

But that then gives rise, again, to the question; "what is the proper temperature for the planet?"
Sorry and with all due respect, but that is total rubbish. There is no 'proper' temperature for the planet. The planet gives a rat's ass about its temperature. We as a species, don't, or shouldn't, because large parts of our civilization pretty much depend on more or less the temperature we have now.

[steelish]

While probably quite true, it's important to know which experts agree and which do not. If nine doctors tell you that you're dying and one lawyer says that you're not, which should you believe?

The AGW controversy is somewhat like this. A very large, and growing, majority of those who have spent their careers studying climatology (experts) agree that AGW is happening. A large majority of those who oppose AGW have not spent their careers in this field, and therefore cannot be considered experts in that field! My money is with the climatologists.

Climatology is a small field funded by government organizations. Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist. Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people recognize the issue isn’t settled.

Evidently, the government's money (in essence, our tax-payer money) is with the Climatologists as well.

[steelish]

The recent Icelandic eruption released more co2 in ONE DAY than ALL OF EUROPE did in a year.

[Thorne]

Climatology is a small field funded by government organizations. Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist. Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people recognize the issue isn’t settled.

Evidently, the government's money (in essence, our tax-payer money) is with the Climatologists as well.

I would hope you can back this up with data. Otherwise it sounds all too much like the usual conspiracy nuts who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of conspiring with the government. The 9/11 'Truthers', the anti-Obama 'Birthers', or any other similar group. They claim to know the real truth and anyone who presents data or information that shows them to be wrong automatically becomes a member of the "conspiracy".

"Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people" are not experts in climatology. While there may be some overlap, especially with weathermen and solar experts, this does not necessarily give them the expertise to analyze and interpret the complex data which climatologists use.

And the claim that the climatologists are pawns of the governments is just misleading. In the modern world virtually all scientific research is financed in some manner by the government or big business/industry. It's just too damned expensive to set up independent laboratories on your own.

The bigger question is, who gains by falsely proclaiming global warming, and who gains by falsely denying global warming. Sadly there are suspects on both sides, making it even more difficult to determine the truth. And the fact that the media will tend to portray only the most dire and horrific effects of GW, or the most dire and horrific outcomes of fighting GW when it doesn't exist, only makes matter worse.

My personal feeling is that the scientists are getting it right. But it's a very complex issue, with a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. And there's still a lot of science to be done. Let them do it.

[Thorne]

The recent Icelandic eruption released more co2 in ONE DAY than ALL OF EUROPE did in a year.

While this is true, it is also misleading. Volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2 are relative constants in the long term. They've always been there, and as far as people are concerned they always will be. CO2 emissions from them will have peaks and valleys but the average effect will remain relatively constant.

But this does illustrate some of the complexity of climate study. When determining CO2 levels, or temperatures, or any number of other factors, in the past, one of the things climatologists have to consider is the effects of localized geothermal activity. Krakatoa had a devastating impact on global climate for several years, lowering temperatures significantly. Mt. St. Helens had a similar effect on the US for a time. Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines, blew a massive hole in the ozone layer, something scientists never expected could happen. As scientists learn more about how these things effect our climate, they have to go back and reanalyze data that may have been affected by them.

One very important thing that non-scientists should familiarize themselves with is how the scientific method works. It's a self-correcting process which helps to advance good science while minimizing bad science. But it is still a human process, so there are mistakes and misunderstandings. There can also be fraud and deceit. But it's the best process we have for learning the truth.

[denuseri]

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

[Thorne]

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.
Another of my pet peeves, here. You do not prove theories with facts. An hypothesis must explain the facts, all of the facts, and predict future facts, before it can be considered a valid theory. The layman/Hollywood definition of theory is completely wrong. A scientific theory is about as close as you can get to explaining the real world.


Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.
I doubt that anyone outside of the media (and politicians, of course) are claiming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence does show that we are a significant contributor.

[leo9]

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

Scientists are never "sure" in the sense you mean. Even if every known scrap of evidence supports a theory, a good scientist always keeps in mind that something might be discovered tomorrow that would undermine it. The only advice any honest scientifist can ever give is "The best evidence we have is that X is the case."

Politicians understand this, and base their decisions on the probabilities. So do we all in matters of common sense. If your doctor told you the evidence was 90% that you had a life-threatening condition, you wouldn't tell him to wait till he was sure before treating it: anyone can see that it would only be 100% certain when you died.

The only people who demand 100% certainty in science are those with a financial or ideological interest in attacking a theory, like creationists and AGW deniers, because they know that that demand can never be met. And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

[Thorne]

And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

[SadisticNature]

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

And chances are good the specialty was in political advocacy at that.

On the other hand, if you focus on quality sources like peer-reviewed journals you can see all sorts of evidence that man-made chemicals are altering the Earth's temperature, and you can't see a single good study saying they don't without looking back several years. It's not because politics or other factors drive the agenda, its that those models have been refuted through further study.

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

[Thorne]

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.
It's worth remembering, too, that there were scientists, reputable ones, who were afraid that setting off the first atomic bomb could destroy the atmosphere. The science said it was extremely unlikely but, as noted earlier, scientists rarely can say something is impossible. There were also fears about that big collider in Switzerland. But it's already been run and, lo and behold, no black holes eating up the Earth!

The point is, there will always be those on the margins who will play up the extreme possibilities, whether through honest concern or simply to get their faces on the news. Just remember: while a 99.999% probability may not be the same as absolutely true, it's a hell of a lot more likely than driving home from work without having an accident. Worrying about the .001% will keep you huddled in your home, afraid to open your eyes.

[leo9]

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

[steelish]

Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded)

Oh, and how about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y&feature=player_embedded) one?

Hmmm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKOSiYWwcio&feature=related)

And what about these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&feature=related) experts?

No, there's no conspiracy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related)


Wow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkma7RO4Q24&feature=related)

And then there's this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8G4gtfkMvM&feature=related)

[FrgnSwtc]

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

I agree, to think that there's a plot against the good and unsuspecting taxpayers is a bit of a stretch.
There's been arguments on both sides since the Treaty of Rome (1957) from solid scientific research as well obscure ranters (God bless internet).

Besides, if there's a country in the western world far behind it's peers in research, investment and successes where sustainability is concerned is the US.

Respectfully,

FS

[Thorne]

Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded)
No one questions the fact that plants grow better with CO2. But did that demonstration show the impact of additional heat? What about additional rain causing of higher humidity levels in the air? Would the plants be able to grow where they have grown before if these conditions change? None of these questions are demonstrated in the video. Yet they are critical as to whether crops we need for survival could still grow on our farmland!


Oh, and how about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y&feature=player_embedded) one?
Dr. Idso is not a climatologist, though his field of study does include the interaction of CO2 with agriculture. But as I noted above, that doesn't mean the plants will continue to grow where we need them to grow. Also, the Center he represents (and founded) refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, and information suggests that a significant portion may come from big oil. Hardly a disinterested party!

He states that CO2 "could not be the primary cause of glacial/interglacial temperature changes", which may well be true, but those changes would have, as now, released CO2 and methane which had been trapped, which explains the rise of those levels after the start of the warming. But claiming that these gases do NOT affect temperatures is blatant lying. Laboratory testing done all over the world have shown that they do, indeed, cause the kinds of effects which climatologists assert. This is not just interpretation of historical data but actual laboratory testing!


Hmmm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKOSiYWwcio&feature=related)
Yes, John Christy does oppose those who promote cataclysmic changes from global warming. He does not deny the fact that global warming is occurring, nor that mankind is at least partly responsible. This video is another example of the media spinning the story to suit their own agenda.


And what about these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&feature=related) experts?
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

I hope I have cast enough skepticism on these videos to encourage others to research the rest. I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the problems in them all.

As for my own stance, while there is still some question in my mind over the significance of global warming, there is little question that it is occurring. As I have stated, laboratory testing has shown that CO2 and methane and water vapor are significant greenhouse gases. Historically, CO2 and methane levels have increased because of higher global temperatures, as they are released from trapped reservoirs in the tundras and sea beds. But we are already starting to see those same reservoirs beginning to release their gases, which will only further increase the CO2 and methane content in the atmosphere. And this time, the CO2 and methane are LEADING the warming, rather than following.

Things are definitely changing. I don't know if they'll get as bad as some of the doom-criers claim. I tend to doubt it myself. But the changes are, indeed, happening.

[steelish]

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.


You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.

[Thorne]

You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.
I never said any of them were morons. Just that their fields of expertise did not necessarily qualify them to be considered experts in climatology. Dentists study medicine but it's unlikely you would want one to do heart surgery on you. Architects design entire buildings, but could you trust one to weld the steel together? Certainly an architect could learn to weld, or a dentist could learn surgery. But then they would have the credentials for those things and would display them, proudly. If these scientists have the proper credentials, why don't they proclaim them? If they don't have those credentials then, while they may be experts in their fields, they aren't necessarily experts in other fields.


I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.
I've been known to get a little(!) sarcastic on occasion, so no need to apologize. And I'm not dismissing any fields of study. What I'm doing is comparing the claims of one study with the claims of another. In a field like this, especially, where the amount of reproducible laboratory work is minor and the major part of claims comes from field study and interpretation of data, you have to balance those interpretations and come to a decision about which you think might be correct.

My training, and my predisposition, is to trust the chemist with chemical matters, the physicist with physics matters and the climatologist with climate matters. When thousands of climate experts show their data, explain their results, and come to similar conclusions, I have to place their findings ahead of an expert in another field who comes to a different conclusion. Especially if that other expert may be financed by an industry which has a high financial interest in NOT promoting global warming.

Believe me, steelish, I'm not trying to cling to unfounded beliefs. I started out not believing in AGW, or in global warming at all. Learning new things over the past 10-15 years has led me to the conclusion that global warming is, indeed, occurring. Currently I am tending towards the side of AGW, but I'm not yet convinced that mankind has precipitated this change. However, I am convinced that we have, and are, contributing to it. I believe that there is much that can be done to minimize mankind's impact, such as regulating emissions from industries which produce high levels of greenhouse gases, but throwing money willy-nilly into schemes of carbon-sequestration and carbon credits and all that other political mumbo-jumbo is just crap that we have to fight against. It's like the swindlers ca. 1900 who were selling comet masks to protect people when the Earth passed through the tail of Haley's comet. (Yeah, look it up! It happened!)

So, when someone says to me, "Look at all this stuff from scientists who say there is no global warming! How can you still believe?", my response has to be, "Look at all this stuff from real climate experts! How can you not believe!"

[SadisticNature]

You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.

Climatology is basically a renaming of what used to be Atmospheric Physics, a field that has reputable journals that have been publishing since at least the 1970's.

Geophysics is not Atmospheric physics, and Astrophysics is basically an irrelevant field when considering things that are happening in the atmosphere of the planet we are on.

It's not a matter of smart vs not. No one is saying astrophysicists are stupid. But studying the Earth from the ground downwards or space from above atmosphere to the outer reaches of the universe doesn't qualify one as an expert in discussions on what is going on in the Earth's Atmosphere (namely part of the area located between what those two disciplines study).

[lucy]

Geophysics is not Atmospheric physics, and Astrophysics is basically an irrelevant field when considering things that are happening in the atmosphere of the planet we are on.
Apparently not. Saw a feature recently where an astrophysicist postulated that the long time variations of the earth's temperature correspond pretty neatly with the amount of some sort of radiation that hits the earth while we travel through space. Unfortunately i don't remember the details exactly but it made quite sense and certainly shows that the earth's climate is much more complex and depending on many more factors than we used to think.

He also said that this doesn't explain short time rises and falls of the earths temperature.

[socal_dan]

I doubt that anyone outside of the media (and politicians, of course) are claiming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence does show that we are a significant contributor.Except that the Earth's own feedback loops are significantly stronger than human borne effects. As an oddity, global warming theorists will say that humans can significantly impact the global climate, while at exactly the same time explaining that Siberia's methane traps releasing could be 50-100 times (or more) worse than any man-made climate warming.

It's absurdly illogical that we're both a major cause, and completely insignificant.

Completely switching gears to address what lucy's saying: The spinning core of the earth creates a magnetic field around our astral body, the magnetosphere, which is influenced by outside radiation forces. Its role in global climatology is deflection of solar wind so that the atmosphere isn't blown away by the sun (compare directly to Mars, which has a non-molten, non-spinning core, no magnetosphere, and negligible atmosphere). It's this deflection of the solar wind (and in turn plasma sheeting of the atmosphere) that's responsible for things like the northern lights.

It's also responsible for upper atmospheric ionization, storm generation, and a number of other atmospheric effects.

[Thorne]

Except that the Earth's own feedback loops are significantly stronger than human borne effects. As an oddity, global warming theorists will say that humans can significantly impact the global climate, while at exactly the same time explaining that Siberia's methane traps releasing could be 50-100 times (or more) worse than any man-made climate warming.

It's absurdly illogical that we're both a major cause, and completely insignificant.
Nothing illogical about it at all. The hypothesis is that global warming was initiated by human-related effects, and when a certain stage is reached the tundra will begin to thaw, releasing vast quantities of methane and CO2. It is also causing global sea temperatures to rise, which can (and is) causing the thawing of methane hydrates from the ocean floor. That would be the tip-over point, leading to possible runaway global warming. At which point, any efforts we could make to reverse the problem would be insignificant.

And while the feedback loops are strong, they also take time. Given the effects of runaway warming, it could take the earth tens of thousands of years, if not millions, to return to something close to the kind of climate we have now, if it ever does. Odds are that human civilization, as we know it, will be long gone by the time that happens.

Make no mistake about it: Earth will survive, one way or another. Life will survive, in one form or another. Whether humanity survives is questionable. We could well go the way of the dinosaurs.

[steelish]

Climatology is basically a renaming of what used to be Atmospheric Physics, a field that has reputable journals that have been publishing since at least the 1970's.

Climatologists created their own journal: Climatic Change and it came out in 1977. But unlike many new journals, this one did not in fact launch itself as the flagship of a new discipline. Its explicit policy was to publish papers that were mainly interdisciplinary, such as explorations of the consequences that global warming might have on ecosystems. Most scientific papers on climate change itself continued to be published in journals dedicated to a specific field, like the meteorologists' Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences or the paleontologists' Quaternary Research.

On the whole, climate science remained "a scientific backwater," as one of its leading figures recalled decades later. "There is little question," he claimed, "that the best science students traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science." (Richard Lindzen, Testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, May 2, 2001, available as appendix to United States Congress (107:1) (2001) (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#1567)) The study of climate was not a field where you could win a Nobel Prize or a million-dollar patent. You were not likely to win great public fame, nor great respect from scientists in fields where discoveries were more fundamental and more certain. In the mid 1970s, it would have been hard to find a hundred scientists with high ability and consistent dedication to solving the puzzles of climate change. Now as before, many of the most important new findings on climate come from people whose main work lay in other fields, from air pollution to space science, as temporary detours from their main concerns.

[denuseri]

Besides which, the Earths position relative to the sun and the suns immission intensity have far more bearing on temperature than most of the other factors.

Another factor few people like to consider, is that so called "natural events" both geological, and stellar, have had on different occassions much more rapid onsets and durational effects than climatoligists or politicans supporting the current "human only cuase agenda" wish to make known for public consumption just becuase it puts holes in the political agenda behind the current push.

As a side note: the rising co2 levels still havent been proven, nor does all the evidence point towrds, it being a direct cuase of climate change when it could in fact be an effect, the proccess relationship between them isnt as of yet understood well enough to say with certianty that one drives the other.

Additionally geologic records alone show countless times where the earth quite suddenly cooled down and or warmed up (well within a short fifty to 100 year period) and to greater extents than it is currently doing (and or projected to do) in both duration and temperature shift...long, long before humanity's presence on the planet could possibely cuase any signifigant changes.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="Pink"]Besides which, the Earths position relative to the sun and the suns immission intensity have far more bearing on temperature than most of the other factors.
True, but these emissions are will known and factored into the calculations made by climatologists.


Another factor few people like to consider, is that so called "natural events" both geological, and stellar, have had on different occassions much more rapid onsets and durational effects than climatoligists or politicans supporting the current "human only cuase agenda" wish to make known for public consumption just becuase it puts holes in the political agenda behind the current push.
Again, these natural causes are pretty well understood and accounted for. The levels of volcanic activity, for example are constantly measured, along with the amount of ash and dust being put out by volcanoes, and it has been found that, in general, these events are relatively constant, averaging out over the years. There have been some blips, of course. The eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, combined with unusually low solar activity, caused tremendous problems around the world, during what has been called 'The Year Without a Summer'. But still, these events are understood and factored into calculations.


As a side note: the rising co2 levels still havent been proven, nor does all the evidence point towrds, it being a direct cuase of climate change when it could in fact be an effect, the proccess relationship between them isnt as of yet understood well enough to say with certianty that one drives the other.
This is just plain wrong. CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels. While there can be some variations depending on where measurements are taken, the overall average of CO2 concentration has been steadily climbing. And laboratory testing has shown that increasing CO2 levels will cause increased atmospheric temperatures due to the absorption of infrared radiation. What it amounts to is that, by combining the natural sources of CO2 emission with the burning of fossil fuels by civilization and the deforestation of large tracts of land, there is more CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year than the natural processes can remove.


Additionally geologic records alone show countless times where the earth quite suddenly cooled down and or warmed up (well within a short fifty to 100 year period) and to greater extents than it is currently doing (and or projected to do) in both duration and temperature shift...long, long before humanity's presence on the planet could possibely cuase any signifigant changes.
And the problem with this is that humanity may not be able to survive such a shift. Yes, it's possible the globe could be plunged into a deep freeze, or things beyond our control could raise the temperature to unbearable levels in a relatively short time. Those dangers will always be there, and there's damned little we can do about them. But that's not the problem we're facing now, is it?

Even if we could prove that the current warming cycle was not started by mankind, there's more than enough evidence to show that our own contributions are making things worse. The best way to minimize our impact is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels significantly. This would, however, have a very strong negative impact on those industries which depend upon our consumption of those fuels, as well as those politicians who depend upon those same industries for their political existence. And this is the primary reason that there is so much resistance to the very idea of global warming.

PS: The sunspot cycle, which has been unusually silent for the past two years, has recently restarted. In March of this year the first major sunspot activity in more than two years were detected. If this means a startup of the solar cycle, it will mean gradually rising temperatures here on Earth. It will be interesting to see the effects this will have on denialists.

[denuseri]

True, but these emissions are will known and factored into the calculations made by climatologists.

You mean they are "ignored" ussually becuase they don't match with what most climatoligists want to see.

Again, these natural causes are pretty well understood and accounted for.

The levels of volcanic activity, for example are constantly measured, along with the amount of ash and dust being put out by volcanoes, and it has been found that, in general, these events are relatively constant, averaging out over the years. There have been some blips, of course. The eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815, combined with unusually low solar activity, caused tremendous problems around the world, during what has been called 'The Year Without a Summer'. But still, these events are understood and factored into calculations.

There is nothing constant about the stellar event that took place over north america a few thousand years ago that brought the mass extinction of countless species (including clovis man) from not only the initial impact but from the subsequent rapid world wide climate change (which also killed more than its fair share of mammoths found in siberia whose stomachs still contained warm weather food yet they died in cold weather conditions). It has happened countless times and didnt take thousands or even hundreds of years to occur. The Deccan-taps eruptions are another prime example from an earlier period.

As for their being factored into calculations I just looked at a whole series of calculations where it wasnt just the other day at school and listened to a 3 hour lecture on how the climatoligists are ignoreing the data that doesnt support their claims.


This is just plain wrong. CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels. While there can be some variations depending on where measurements are taken, the overall average of CO2 concentration has been steadily climbing. And laboratory testing has shown that increasing CO2 levels will cause increased atmospheric temperatures due to the absorption of infrared radiation. What it amounts to is that, by combining the natural sources of CO2 emission with the burning of fossil fuels by civilization and the deforestation of large tracts of land, there is more CO2 being added to the atmosphere each year than the natural processes can remove.

Actually co2 was higher by allmost a factor of 2 or more than todays levels on several different occassions according to the geologic record long before humans ran around and figured out how to make fire rubbing sticks together.

Labrotory testing has also shown that when you raise the temperature, that co2 levels will increase along with it on their own. Go riddle me that one Sir.

And the problem with this is that humanity may not be able to survive such a shift. Yes, it's possible the globe could be plunged into a deep freeze, or things beyond our control could raise the temperature to unbearable levels in a relatively short time. Those dangers will always be there, and there's damned little we can do about them. But that's not the problem we're facing now, is it?

Why yes it most certiantly is one of the dangers we need to prepare for and could face at any moment.

Additonally...just in case...though mainly for other reasons perveiously stated numerous times other than the "its our fault thinking"...I believe we should be reducing carbon emissions anyway and treating the enviroment a heck of a lot better. I also believe our #1 way to do this is via further space exploration and technological achievement in combination with a reduction of industries designed around the explotation of "limited" "perishable" rescources.

Even if we could prove that the current warming cycle was not started by mankind, there's more than enough evidence to show that our own contributions are making things worse. The best way to minimize our impact is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels significantly. This would, however, have a very strong negative impact on those industries which depend upon our consumption of those fuels, as well as those politicians who depend upon those same industries for their political existence. And this is the primary reason that there is so much resistance to the very idea of global warming.

I agree on that preception good Sir in its entirety.

PS: The sunspot cycle, which has been unusually silent for the past two years, has recently restarted. In March of this year the first major sunspot activity in more than two years were detected. If this means a startup of the solar cycle, it will mean gradually rising temperatures here on Earth. It will be interesting to see the effects this will have on denialists.


I am also worried in addition to what you have mentioned and a very likely possibility of stellar impact; about the possibility of slight obital shift or a change again in the earths angle of declination as it rotates (it went from 14 degrees once to what it is now a while back which cuased massive changes)which hopefully wont happen due to the upcomming switch in polarities expected to happen between our magnetic poles in the near future which may have allready started btw.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]You mean they are "ignored" ussually becuase they don't match with what most climatoligists want to see.
How can they be ignored? Ignoring natural sources of CO2 would require climatologists to claim that ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. they're not. From what I've found, they are claiming that only 3% of the annual addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is caused by mankind (not including respiration.) The problem is that not all of this man-made CO2 can be handled by the natural cycles, so the CO2 levels are gradually increasing.


There is nothing constant about the stellar event that took place over north america a few thousand years ago that brought the mass extinction of countless species (including clovis man) from not only the initial impact but from the subsequent rapid world wide climate change (which also killed more than its fair share of mammoths found in siberia whose stomachs still contained warm weather food yet they died in cold weather conditions). It has happened countless times and didnt take thousands or even hundreds of years to occur. The Deccan-taps eruptions are another prime example from an earlier period.
The astronomical event you're referring to is a relatively recent hypothesis, which is still being studied. There are a couple of different hypotheses regarding the cause of the climate change at that time. But they all reference cataclysmic events, not gradual climate change. There is certainly little argument about the possibility of relatively rapid climate change caused by such events. When they calculate the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, naturally these events are not included, as they are aberrations which do not figure into the kinds of data they are concerned about. For example, if you want to determine the amount of smoke dispersed into the air by naturally occurring forest fires, you don't include the data from those fires started by people. They are not, by definition, natural. They are aberrations, at least as far as your study is concerned.


Actually co2 was higher by allmost a factor of 2 or more than todays levels on several different occassions according to the geologic record long before humans ran around and figured out how to make fire rubbing sticks together.
Yes it has, but that has nothing to do with what's occurring now. The controversy now is not how much CO2 is present, but where it's coming from, and how much it's affecting our climate. The CO2 concentrations 100 million years ago are not relevant to today's climate. The effects of those concentrations, on the other hand, may be. But the entire atmosphere was different back then, and moderating influences from oceanic currents which we have today were much different.


Labrotory testing has also shown that when you raise the temperature, that co2 levels will increase along with it on their own. Go riddle me that one Sir.
Exactly, but that's not the testing I was talking about. I was referring to testing which shows that CO2, methane and even water vapor are strong greenhouse gases which can affect the temperature of the atmosphere. As far as I know, though, CO2 is NOT created in the atmosphere as the temperatures increase. But higher temperatures do cause CO2, methane and water vapor to be freed from ground sources, such as the tundra and methane hydrate deposits. This is one of the things that worries many scientists. Man-made CO2 causes a slight rise in average global temperatures; higher temperatures cause thawing of permafrost in the CO2-rich tundras of Canada and Siberia (primarily), causing release of this CO2 into the atmosphere, causing further warming. Warming also causes a rise in sea temperatures, which causes thawing of methane-hydrate deposits on the ocean floor, causing release of methane into the atmosphere, causing even more temperature rises. It's a vicious cycle. The biggest controversy, however, is not over whether it will happen, but in how large an effect it will have. It's already known to be happening, a fact confirmed by direct observation and measurement.


I am also worried in addition to what you have mentioned and a very likely possibility of stellar impact;
I assume you mean an asteroid or comet impact. (Stellar refers to stars: just a minor nit-pick) Yes, these are possible, but not worth worrying about unless you're in the government or the space program. If we are going to be impacted by something about the size of the object which wiped out the dinosaurs, or even the one which may have wiped out the mammoths, there's nothing we can do to prevent it. About all we can do is, "Watch the skies! Keep watching the skies!" ('The Thing from Another World', 1951)


about the possibility of slight obital shift
To my knowledge, this could only be caused by the intrusion of something quite large into our immediate neighborhood, or by a very large impact. In either case, there's not a damned thing we can do about it, so no sense worrying about it. The possibilities are even more remote than for an asteroid impact.


or a change again in the earths angle of declination as it rotates (it went from 14 degrees once to what it is now a while back which cuased massive changes)
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I assume you mean the axial tilt, which is what causes our seasons. I've seen nothing about it being 14º at any time, though. It averages from about 22º to about 24º. It's currently getting smaller and should reach minimum in about 9000 years or so. Not something we need to worry about.


which hopefully wont happen due to the upcomming switch in polarities expected to happen between our magnetic poles in the near future which may have allready started btw.
The Earth's magnetic field is in a constant state of flux. The north magnetic pole has been migrating northward since 1931 (when measurements began), and the speed of this migration has recently increased. But the possibility of a magnetic reversal, which has occurred in the past, is certainly there. From what I've read, the last reversal was over 700,000 years ago, and they've averaged out at about once every 300,000 years, so we may be overdue for one. But no one really knows. There's certainly no indication that it will happen in the near future, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen tomorrow. But there doesn't seem to be any indication that such a shift would be catastrophic as far as climate or life is concerned. There will be problems in navigation for anyone still using magnetic compasses, and probably some other localized effects. The only real problem would be if, for some reason, the magnetic field simply switched off, leaving the planet exposed to the solar wind. But there's no evidence for that happening. And there's certainly no evidence for it happening in the near future. And again, it's something over which we have absolutely no control, so worrying about it is a waste of time.

[denuseri]

Just becuase you have no control over somthing happening doesnt mean you cant be prepare for it.

[Thorne]

Just becuase you have no control over somthing happening doesnt mean you cant be prepare for it.
Quite true. But preparing and worrying are not the same thing. And building a boat on top of a mountain every time it gets cloudy is just worrying.

[denuseri]

And as one can see, in some people's oppinions, (not mine obviously) so too is it with Global Warming and Climate Change.

[Thorne]

For those wanting to cling to the denial, the verdict is in (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/05/breaking-climate-scientists-cleared-of-malpractice-by-panel/#more-15045)!

Global warming is real, and one way or another we're going to have to deal with it.

Mint julep, anyone?

[denuseri]

And yet according to the blogs sited resources:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh

UEA welcomes the Report by the Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel, both in respect of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being cleared of any scientific impropriety and dishonesty, and the suggestions made for improvement in some other areas.

The Oxburgh findings are the result of the latest scrutiny of CRU’s research. The first was the original peer review which led to publication in some of the world’s leading international science journals; the second was the Inquiry by the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee. Taken together, these must represent one of the most searching examinations of any body of scientific research. The veracity of CRU’s research remains intact after this examination.

It is gratifying to us that the Oxburgh Report points out that CRU has done a public service of great value by carrying out meticulous work on temperature records when it was unfashionable and attracted little scientific interest, and that the Unit has been amongst the leaders in international efforts to determine the overall uncertainty in the derived temperature records. Similarly, the Report emphasises that all of CRU’s published research on the global land-based instrumental temperature record included detailed descriptions of uncertainties and appropriate caveats. We also welcome the confirmation that, although some have accused CRU of trying to mislead, the Unit’s published research emphasises the late 20th Century discrepancy between tree-based proxy reconstructions of temperature and instrumental observations.

The Report points out where things might have been done better. One is to engage more with professional statisticians in the analysis of data. Another, related, point is that more efficacious statistical techniques might have been employed in some instances (although it was pointed out that different methods may not have produced different results). Specialists in many areas of research acquire and develop the statistical skills pertinent to their own particular data analysis requirements. However, we do see the sense in engaging more fully with the wider statistics community to ensure that the most effective and up-to-date statistical techniques are adopted and will now consider further how best to achieve this.

Another area for suggested improvement is in the archiving of data and algorithms, and in recording exactly what was done. Although no-one predicted the import of this pioneering research when it started in the mid-1980’s, it is now clear that more effort needs to be put into this activity. CRU, and other parts of the climate science community, are already making improvements in these regards, and the University will continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained.

The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review investigation is underway, and therefore some important issues are still under active consideration. This document is our immediate written response to the Oxburgh Report. In the coming weeks we shall be considering precisely how we act upon the detailed findings of the Oxburgh Report, together with the findings of the parliamentary select committee and, in due course, the Independent Muir Russell review report.

[steelish]

For those wanting to cling to the denial, the verdict is in (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/05/breaking-climate-scientists-cleared-of-malpractice-by-panel/#more-15045)!

Global warming is real, and one way or another we're going to have to deal with it.

Mint julep, anyone?

a panel of POLITICIANS? No thanks.

[Thorne]

And yet according to the blogs sited resources:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/oxburgh

The Independent Climate Change E-mail Review investigation is underway, and therefore some important issues are still under active consideration. [/I]

So they're examining the emails. So what? The emails have nothing to do with the data. Only with their internal communications. If you intend to hang the science of global warming on some emails you're really stretching things.

[Thorne]

a panel of POLITICIANS? No thanks.

No, the first investigation was done by politicians. This second investigation was done by scientists. Both groups found that there was no wrongdoing by the CRU and that their data was sound. What more do you need? Should we have the oil companies do their own investigation? How about a panel of religious leaders? And let's not forget the UFO 'experts'!

No, as far as I can see the only wrongdoing here was the person who hacked the email accounts and distributed selected excerpts from private communications.

[leo9]

No, the first investigation was done by politicians. This second investigation was done by scientists.

But the scientist are the conspirators, remember? In the pay of the politicians, who are all crypto-communists, even the Pentagon.

Except the deniers, who can be trusted because they're obviously not in the conspiracy.

It's so easy when you don't need to bother with facts.

[steelish]

It's a safe bet that most Americans' first exposure to the concept of carbon trading or cap-and-trade legislation came during the most recent presidential campaign when both candidates advocated the need to make protecting the environment a government mandate instead of the moral obligation it's always been. In the past few months President Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that a comprehensive energy/environmental law, including cap-and-trade, is an absolute priority of his administration.

Cap-and-Trade

Simply put, the idea behind the cap-and-trade plan is this: The federal government would set limits or cap the amount of pollutant a business could create. If the business chose to emit levels exceeding the cap they would have to find a business not using its full allotment and purchase the surplus from them. Needless-to-say, for the concept to work there would need to be a highly centralized infrastructure to facilitate the transactions, matching buyers to sellers.

The CCX: A Dream Come True?

For people like Richard Sandor (http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=122) and former Vice-President Al Gore the focus on "green politics" represented the culmination of years of planning and a giant step towards a massive payday.

With a big helping hand from then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, Sandor's brainchild, The Chicago Climate Exchange, opened for business in 2003 billing itself as "North America's only cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases..." In other words, the facilitator for a scheme not quite hatched. Sandor, a long-time economist turned environmentalist shared his vision during a 1990 interview with the Wall Street Journal, saying, "Air and water are no longer the free goods that economics once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated." The statement didn't get a lot of attention back then but today seems prophetic. Sandor claims his idea of efficient allocation, also known as carbon trading, will develop into a $10 trillion industry.

Assembling the Team

During 2000 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation, a progressive trust with assets near $1 billion, known for funding groups like Center for American Progress and Tides Foundation, provided grants to CCX totaling $1.1 million. State Senator Obama served on the foundation's board of directors during that time and was instrumental in awarding the grants.

Shortly after the first grant was approved, the president of The Joyce Foundation, Paula DiPerna, left to join the executive team of CCX. Other notables with familiar names soon followed.


• Former Vice-President Al Gore became part-owner of CCX when his company, Generation Investment Management, made a sizeable investment. Gore brought with him his senior partner at GIM, David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, along with a company chalk full of former Goldman Sachs' executives

• Goldman Sachs itself soon joined the team buying a ten percent interest in CCX

• Maurice Strong, once linked to Tongsun Park, the central figure in the United Nation's oil-for-food scandal in 2005 and one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol, joined the CCX board of directors

• Carlton Bartels was one of the first, and perhaps most important, additions to the CCX roster. As CEO of a company called CO2e, Bartels developed and delivered the actual guts of the exchange — a system for facilitating and managing the actual carbon trades

Strange Bedfellows

Just three weeks after filing for a patent for his carbon trade system, Bartels was killed during the attacks of 9/11. Bartels' death opened the door for a new partner to join CCX, easily the oddest fit of them all: Fannie Mae. In a move still unexplained, the quasi-governmental mortgage agency, led by CEO Franklin Raines, purchased the rights to the system from Bartel's widow. A patent on the invention was granted to Raines and Fannie Mae on November 7, 2006, ironically, the day after the Democrats regained control of Congress. According to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner, the patent covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiative and gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over the automated trading system used by Sandor's CCX.

When asked about the patent recently Fannie Mae communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner, "Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent. We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation." A source close to Fannie Mae, however, says a plan is in place to funnel future earnings from the patent to a non-profit housing organization called Enterprise Community Partners. Ironically, Raines, who left Fannie Mae in 2004 amidst allegations that he inflated earnings reports in order to collect higher bonuses ($52 million in bonuses over 5-years; $90 million in total compensation), serves on the board of trustees at Enterprise. In a continuation of theme, Goldman Sachs also has a representative on the board in the person of Alicia Glen.

Off to See the Wizard

In December 2009 The Joyce Foundation awarded Raines and Enterprise a $200,000 grant to launch Emerald Cities Collaborative. According to its website, "The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) is a start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials."

Emerald Cities' goal is "the greening of our nation's central cities and the creation of a "new vital economic sector." The collaborative is headed up by Joel Rogers, widely recognized as the "man behind the curtain" of today's progressive political movement. Rogers founded the powerful Apollo Alliance, the group recognized as having shaped much of the Obama administration's stimulus bill. Former White House green jobs "czar," Van Jones, described Rogers influence this way: "The best thinking that he represents… is now represented in the White House."

Also represented on the Emerald Cities board of directors, Gerald Hudson, executive director of SEIU (also on the Apollo Alliance advisory board); Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of Green For All (created by Van Jones), and Doris Koo, CEO of Enterprise Community Partners, along with a collection of other union and community activist regulars.

The Bottom Line

The "environmental movement," once the bastion of peace loving hippies and Earth mothers, is potentially the booming business of the 21st century. Billions of dollars currently change hands each year in the name of the environment and, by all accounts, the surface is only scratched.

To date the missing piece of the puzzle has been a government mandate, something cap-and-trade legislation will remedy. Those already in the game stand to reap a fortune on the backs of average Americans who will see their energy bills "necessarily skyrocket," as President Obama explained, as businesses pass along the new cost of doing what they do in a "green America."

It's interesting to note that without the specter of a government mandate, the Chicago Climate Exchange would hold no value. Likewise Fannie Mae's patented trading system and Emerald Cities' prospects for "a new vital economic sector" would be nothing more than fool's gold.

Equally troubling is the blatant acknowledgement by those involved in this high stakes green rush that power and profit are the only real benefits to be had. The words of Joel Rogers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Bh3jWqiUw0): "I hope you all realized that you could eliminate every power plant in America today and you can stop every car in America. Take out the entire power generation sector and you still would not be anywhere near 80 percent below 1990 levels. You would be closer to around 60 percent... it would be around 68 percent and this is with bringing the economy to a complete halt… basically."

Crime Inc. – what do they know and when did they know it… and how much will it cost the American people?

Oh, and FYI - Al Gore, who denies the allegations that he is a "carbon billionaire" recently bought 9 million dollar California oceanfront property despite his claims that the "oceans will rise significantly". But no. There's no conspiracy.

[steelish]

Watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQsIBtwUh6Q)

[Thorne]

Crime Inc. – what do they know and when did they know it… and how much will it cost the American people?

Oh, and FYI - Al Gore, who denies the allegations that he is a "carbon billionaire" recently bought 9 million dollar California oceanfront property despite his claims that the "oceans will rise significantly". But no. There's no conspiracy.

You're talking about politicians and big business here, so naturally there's a conspiracy to tax and profit from this. But there's no conspiracy regarding the actual science. That means the data collection and interpretation. The numbers are real, the global warming is real. What the politicians do with the information is beyond the control of science. If you want to stop them simply vote them out of office. Don't throw the scientists out along with them.

[denuseri]

lol, How many times will we go dancing around this when two of the people involved with the emails allready said on tv interviews that they were fudging data when and where they needed it fudged to make their numbers stand up sometimes.

All of which doesnt matter...two people out of hundreds is not the biggie,,,to me the "biggie" is saying that we as humans are soely "responisible" for it alone when so many other factors play a part, just becuase they can't or wont figure out or say whats really the prime contributor.

And in so far as the debate goes accross interdisiplinary sciences...well thats just going to happen...its no different really than the whole decan taps vs asteroid impact debate between astonomers and geologists for the end of the dinosaurs.

[DuncanONeil]

My point exactly!!

You are the only person to ever answer this question. And you understood the question quite well as well. You are correct there is no way we can know the answer to that question.

I do disagree with you last bit though. Perhaps the use of the word "depend" is a bit to strong.


Sorry and with all due respect, but that is total rubbish. There is no 'proper' temperature for the planet. The planet gives a rat's ass about its temperature. We as a species, don't, or shouldn't, because large parts of our civilization pretty much depend on more or less the temperature we have now.

[DuncanONeil]

The recent Icelandic eruption released more co2 in ONE DAY than ALL OF EUROPE did in a year.


Perhaps that was the planet trying to cool down! Putting all that "sun block" in the air.

[DuncanONeil]

Research funded by companies is automatically suspect.

Why then is research funded by a Government automatically free from suspicion?


I would hope you can back this up with data. Otherwise it sounds all too much like the usual conspiracy nuts who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of conspiring with the government. The 9/11 'Truthers', the anti-Obama 'Birthers', or any other similar group. They claim to know the real truth and anyone who presents data or information that shows them to be wrong automatically becomes a member of the "conspiracy".

"Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people" are not experts in climatology. While there may be some overlap, especially with weathermen and solar experts, this does not necessarily give them the expertise to analyze and interpret the complex data which climatologists use.

And the claim that the climatologists are pawns of the governments is just misleading. In the modern world virtually all scientific research is financed in some manner by the government or big business/industry. It's just too damned expensive to set up independent laboratories on your own.

The bigger question is, who gains by falsely proclaiming global warming, and who gains by falsely denying global warming. Sadly there are suspects on both sides, making it even more difficult to determine the truth. And the fact that the media will tend to portray only the most dire and horrific effects of GW, or the most dire and horrific outcomes of fighting GW when it doesn't exist, only makes matter worse.

My personal feeling is that the scientists are getting it right. But it's a very complex issue, with a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. And there's still a lot of science to be done. Let them do it.

[DuncanONeil]

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.


Why is it that does that do not adhere to the party line are tagged "deniers"?

Go back and read the answer to the question about the "proper global temperature".

[DuncanONeil]

And I wonder how many of the advocats are not climatologists?


No one questions the fact that plants grow better with CO2. But did that demonstration show the impact of additional heat? What about additional rain causing of higher humidity levels in the air? Would the plants be able to grow where they have grown before if these conditions change? None of these questions are demonstrated in the video. Yet they are critical as to whether crops we need for survival could still grow on our farmland!


Dr. Idso is not a climatologist, though his field of study does include the interaction of CO2 with agriculture. But as I noted above, that doesn't mean the plants will continue to grow where we need them to grow. Also, the Center he represents (and founded) refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, and information suggests that a significant portion may come from big oil. Hardly a disinterested party!

He states that CO2 "could not be the primary cause of glacial/interglacial temperature changes", which may well be true, but those changes would have, as now, released CO2 and methane which had been trapped, which explains the rise of those levels after the start of the warming. But claiming that these gases do NOT affect temperatures is blatant lying. Laboratory testing done all over the world have shown that they do, indeed, cause the kinds of effects which climatologists assert. This is not just interpretation of historical data but actual laboratory testing!


Yes, John Christy does oppose those who promote cataclysmic changes from global warming. He does not deny the fact that global warming is occurring, nor that mankind is at least partly responsible. This video is another example of the media spinning the story to suit their own agenda.


Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

I hope I have cast enough skepticism on these videos to encourage others to research the rest. I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the problems in them all.

As for my own stance, while there is still some question in my mind over the significance of global warming, there is little question that it is occurring. As I have stated, laboratory testing has shown that CO2 and methane and water vapor are significant greenhouse gases. Historically, CO2 and methane levels have increased because of higher global temperatures, as they are released from trapped reservoirs in the tundras and sea beds. But we are already starting to see those same reservoirs beginning to release their gases, which will only further increase the CO2 and methane content in the atmosphere. And this time, the CO2 and methane are LEADING the warming, rather than following.

Things are definitely changing. I don't know if they'll get as bad as some of the doom-criers claim. I tend to doubt it myself. But the changes are, indeed, happening.

[Thorne]

Research funded by companies is automatically suspect.

Why then is research funded by a Government automatically free from suspicion?

I never said it should be free from suspicion, but when research from governments agrees with independent research, or research from other governments, you have to take that into account. Of course, if you really don't want to believe in global warming it's far easier to believe in a vast global conspiracy to fabricate evidence for it. After all, the governments stand to make so much money on it, don't they?

Don't they?

[Thorne]

And I wonder how many of the advocats are not climatologists?

The advocates are the ones doing the research. I wonder how much research the deniers have done?

[DuncanONeil]

I never said it should be free from suspicion, but when research from governments agrees with independent research, or research from other governments, you have to take that into account. Of course, if you really don't want to believe in global warming it's far easier to believe in a vast global conspiracy to fabricate evidence for it. After all, the governments stand to make so much money on it, don't they?

Don't they?


I am glad of that opening line. I really would not expect less from you.
But ... The US Government sees money and is planning to grab a lot of it.

[DuncanONeil]

The advocates are the ones doing the research. I wonder how much research the deniers have done?


That is an interesting comment.
Only AGW advocates are doing research and the results prove AGW.
And the data presented by non-AGW advocates is not a result of research? What is all the data that counters AGW fabricated?

There are four kinds of people in this argument.

We are all going to die! Be it from heat, drowning, starvation from the warming.
Man is killing the planet by CO2. We can fix this. But we must act, drastically, right now.
This warming is a natural event. has happened many times before. Often worse than this.
And lastly. Warming!? What warming.


Now that I look this over I see I left somebody out.

This warming may be a problem. we should put many good minds on this and see what we can find out. Just in case there may be a problem. Then we will know what can be done and how.

Personally I think three of the five are a tad overboard. Some even bordering on hysterical. Makes me wonder about motives.

[Thorne]

That is an interesting comment.
Only AGW advocates are doing research and the results prove AGW.
I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.


And the data presented by non-AGW advocates is not a result of research? What is all the data that counters AGW fabricated?
It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.


1. We are all going to die! Be it from heat, drowning, starvation from the warming.
Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.


2. Man is killing the planet by CO2. We can fix this. But we must act, drastically, right now.
No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.


3. This warming is a natural event. has happened many times before. Often worse than this.
It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.


4. And lastly. Warming!? What warming.
See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?


5. This warming may be a problem. we should put many good minds on this and see what we can find out. Just in case there may be a problem. Then we will know what can be done and how.
This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.



Personally I think three of the five are a tad overboard. Some even bordering on hysterical. Makes me wonder about motives.
We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.

[DuncanONeil]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!

Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?

May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.


I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.


It's not that they fabricated data, although that has happened, too. It's the cherry-picking of the data in order to satisfy a pre-conceived conclusion which is causing the problems.


Ah, yes. The disaster junkies. These are akin to the apocalyptic fundamentalists who are eager for the Rapture! Death and destruction around every corner!

Well, we're all going to die, sooner or later. But chances are humanity will adapt. We're tenacious creatures, after all.


No, we're not killing the planet. Barring an astronomical event which actually destroys the planet, Earth will be here long after humanity has become extinct. What we are doing is altering our environment, certainly on a local level and probably on a global level as well. This will have long term consequences on our survival as a civilization, and perhaps on our survival as a species. But on the brighter side, it's almost sure to kick evolution into overdrive.


It MAY be a natural event, at least in part, but the evidence is pretty clear that we are making it worse than it would naturally be. And yes, warming and cooling cycles have happened many times, and sometimes it's been worse than now. But if you look closely I think you'll find that those events brought about extinctions of large numbers of species. Thinking that we are exempt from these consequences just because we can air condition our homes would be stupid at best.


See the pretty ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground?


This probably comes closer to my own opinion, except I feel that the warming, regardless of the causes, will definitely be a problem. If we are the cause, then there is a lot we can do. Most of us won't be willing to do those things, though. It would mean giving up too many of the luxuries we've become accustomed to. And yes, I do place myself in that crowd. I like my SUV!

But we should also be studying how to best take advantage of this problem. How can we engineer better crops to survive warmer climates? Can we take advantage of longer, hotter growing seasons to increase our food supply? Warmer winters will mean less heating oil consumption. Can we find better ways to cool our homes and business in the summer to reduce our dependence on coal? The list is seemingly endless, and ignoring the problem won't make things any better.



We agree on this, at least. Although I wonder which ones you think are overboard. Personally, I think #'s 1,2 and 4 are the worst of them. #3 is better, but perhaps not completely thought out. The last one is closest to my own opinions, as I said.

[Thorne]

This may be a bit of a surprise but 1,2, and 4 are precisely what I had in mind!
I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.


Clear evidence I am not sure. I have seen evidence that says CO2 is leading heat and that heat is leading CO2. What is one to make of that?
Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.


May sound strange but when I was in school I was taught to develop a hypothesis and test it. Determination to made on the validity or invalidity of the hypothesis. My kids were taught to develop a hypothesis run tests and if the tests did not agree with the hypothesis "change the hypothesis". Somehow I see that as a perversion of the "scientific method". All it takes is simple mistake to promulgate a wrong hypothesis. And in this issue there is a lot of material and data on both sides. Both historical and current. Problem with the current data is that this is not a small thing where a few data points are significant.
I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[denuseri]

And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.

Scientific method 101.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.

Furthermore...the cherry picking of data by the different proponents of one theory or another (and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point) and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking ) is very often the result of too many scientists taking the word of too many other scientists at face value and or being ruled by their passion as opposed to their reason (scientists are human just like the rest of us) or conducting independent reaserch to confirm their findings.

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.

When the deccan taps debate began between the astronomers and the geologists the same sorry hyperbole was used and it didnt solve a thing.

In fact...its starting to look as if both parties were right on that one, it wasnt any one event but a series of events.

For a scientific theory to work as a scientific fact it must be cross disiplinarly inclussive.

[Thorne]

And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.
When you are adding knew knowledge to the records, or contradicting existing knowledge, yes. But if you are developing a knew hypothesis and your data contradicts it, there's not going to be any peer review: you'll rework or discard your hypothesis and start over.


Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.
Of course. And when enough evidence has been acquired to prove that the hypothesis is an accurate representation of the real world it becomes a theory. Which means it's a fact in all but name.


(and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point)
If they are unconfirmed they are not theories, they are still hypotheses. It's only after they've become confirmed, through experimentation and observation, that they gain the status of theories.


and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking
The problem I have with this statement is that those who are doing the actual research and accumulating the data are, in general, making that data available for all. Yes, there have been some screw-ups in this area, but it's been shown to be a case of poor record keeping rather than malice. Those who are denying global warming tend to be those who are not doing any actual research but are taking those areas of data which seem to agree with their desires and holding it up, saying, "See? I told you so!" An example is those who look at the temperature readings for the last ten years or so and say, "Look, the temperatures have been dropping, so there is no global warming." While the data confirms the temperature drops, it does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. There are many natural cycles involved which cause global temperatures to fluctuate. Are the temperature dropping as low as we would expect? What will happen when they start to go up again? And they will go up again, believe me!


And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.
I'm not saying they have no business refuting the findings. But they should be looked at more critically when working outside of their own discipline. And when their conclusions contradict the accepted theories their data and records have to be much more rigorous. That's the way the scientific method works.

[denuseri]

lol This is the process I didnt make it...commom acceptance of something doesnt make it correct eaither.

Once upon a time it was thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of creation. A small group of others said no its not.

And the cross disiplinary sciences invloved in climate models etc...are not working outside of their fields per say. Meteorology and Cosmology and Geology and Archeology all deal at times with planetrary weather paterns as part of their field of study...the difference between them and the Climatologist is their primary focus; which as in the case with the decan taps model provided an insight which one disiplinary field (that of the astromoners) was refusing to look at becuase it didnt support their theory.

It isnt my fualt that many of these (cross disipline as well as some climatologists in the minority) scientists are poking holes in the "prefered" model of what the PC green politicans would like to maintain as mainstream in the public eye via both direct and indirect influence over the field of the climatologists.

[Thorne]

This is the process I didnt make it...commom acceptance of something doesnt make it correct eaither.
That's exactly right. Just because a majority of people don't hold to the AGW hypothesis doesn't mean they are right!


Once upon a time it was thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of creation. A small group of others said no its not.
Most people are surprised to learn that the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round. I believe it was Eratosthenes who made the first known measurements of the Earth's diameter, and his calculations were remarkably accurate given the tools he had to work with. Columbus knew the Earth was round before he began his journey across the Atlantic. In reality it was only the uneducated and the ignorant who believed the world was flat.


And the cross disiplinary sciences invloved in climate models etc...are not working outside of their fields per say. Meteorology and Cosmology and Geology and Archeology all deal at times with planetrary weather paterns as part of their field of study...the difference between them and the Climatologist is their primary focus;
Cosmology deals with the origins of the universe, not with weather patterns on Earth, but the others do indeed have some input into global weather patterns. And I assume you would add Astronomy, since the largest driver of climate is the Sun. But you have to remember that Meteorologists deal primarily with relatively short-term weather patterns, not long-term climate patterns. Geologists and Archeologists are concerned with ancient climate patterns, determining what the climate was like thousands and even millions of years ago. The kinds of data they study is much different than the modern data a Climatologist would study. While this kind of data is important for determining climatological trends, it has little bearing on modern data being gathered.


which as in the case with the decan taps model provided an insight which one disiplinary field (that of the astromoners) was refusing to look at becuase it didnt support their theory.
Actually, I doubt Astronomers care one way or another which hypothesis is correct. The Chicxulub asteroid is of interest to them, and I suppose to some extent its effects, but as to whether this event or the Deccan Traps event were the primary cause of the extinctions is of little concern to them. Biologists, on the other hand, are indeed discussing the two events, trying to determine which was the cause of the extinctions, or if both played a role. Personally, I would speculate (and it is just speculation on my part) that the asteroid impact may have initiated the volcanic activity which created the Deccan Traps. After all, they say that the large earthquake which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami made the Earth "ring like a bell" and actually changed the rotational speed of the planet. I would think that an impact on the order of the Chicxulub asteroid would have done far worse.


It isnt my fualt that many of these (cross disipline as well as some climatologists in the minority) scientists are poking holes in the "prefered" model of what the PC green politicans would like to maintain as mainstream in the public eye via both direct and indirect influence over the field of the climatologists.
I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite scientist who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria.

[Thorne]

Just ran across this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc&feature=player_embedded) which is relevant to the discussion we've been having, regarding the validity of the claims of climate deniers. I'm not claiming that this is gospel, but it is consistent with other items I've seen and read.

Enjoy!

[denuseri]

That's exactly right. Just because a majority of people don't hold to the AGW hypothesis doesn't mean they are right!

I think the AGW theroists are in the majority here love. lol


Most people are surprised to learn that the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was round.

Not in general as a people. Certian individuals suspected it was spherical throughout human history based upon their mathematical deductions and astronomical observations at various times. A people wide consensus was never achived until quite recently historically speaking.


Cosmology deals with the origins of the universe, not with weather patterns on Earth, (oh I would beg to disagree, it covers pretty much everything in existeance...including planatary weather patterns) but the others do indeed have some input into global weather patterns. And I assume you would add Astronomy, since the largest driver of climate is the Sun. But you have to remember that Meteorologists deal primarily with relatively short-term weather patterns (they also keep track of long term repeating weather patterns...including climatic trends) , not long-term climate patterns. Geologists and Archeologists are concerned with ancient climate patterns, (evidence of which is found mainly well within their purview and gives us an excellent historical model for what the earth has been like and will perhaps be like in the future, like we have actually got confirmed geologic data that determines that in the past when the temperature rose signifigantly certian things occured on a global scale, ergo: there will be a rapid global sea rise with glacial reduction once the temperature reaches a certian threshold thanks to these non-climatologists, the climatoligists may now make such a claim with some degree of certitude ) determining what the climate was like thousands and even millions of years ago. The kinds of data they study is much different than the modern data a Climatologist would study. While this kind of data is important for determining climatological trends, it has little bearing on modern data being gathered. Modern climatology has no leg to stand on without the others contributions to back them up.

Actually, I doubt Astronomers care one way or another which hypothesis is correct. (with the deccan taps debate over dinosuar extinction?...oh my, Ive seen them throw things during some debates and lectures over it, they not only clung adamantly to the single asteriod theory to the exclussion of all others as the sole cuase of the dinosuars end, they exerted whatever political pressure they could through the media and academic administrations to attempt to quash all other theories...such rows have been quite common in the scientific comunity in the past and I dont see the climate debate as being any different) The Chicxulub asteroid is of interest to them, and I suppose to some extent its effects, but as to whether this event or the Deccan Traps event were the primary cause of the extinctions is of little concern to them. Biologists, on the other hand, are indeed discussing the two events, trying to determine which was the cause of the extinctions, or if both played a role. Personally, I would speculate (and it is just speculation on my part) that the asteroid impact may have initiated the volcanic activity which created the Deccan Traps. After all, they say that the large earthquake which caused the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami made the Earth "ring like a bell" and actually changed the rotational speed of the planet. I would think that an impact on the order of the Chicxulub asteroid would have done far worse. (actually they allready came to a moderate amount of consensus on it as one having very little to do with the other, especially since the majority of the volcanic activity took place before the impact...the dinosuars were allready well into decline yet both things killed them in a way..like a one two punch, the rapid climate change from the impact was just the finnishing blow)


I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite (group of) scientist (s) who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria.

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.

[Thorne]

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.
Now see? That term, "supporting it at all costs" makes supporters sound like raving lunatics who are unable to let go of their pet theory. Yet they are not the ones calling for their opponents to be flogged, or hanged, or imprisoned. For my own case, all I ask is that someone provide tangible, verifiable evidence to support their claims. I've seen plenty of it from the AGW proponents. I've seen damned little of it from the deniers.


Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.
That's not surprising. The American people as a whole can't be neatly divided down party lines. There are some hard-core right wing nuts and some hard-core left wing nuts. But the majority of people lie somewhere in the middle. Trapped between the wingnuts.

[DuncanONeil]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?


I was hoping that was the case. No surprise, though. I've always had you pegged as rational. Just because we may disagree doesn't make either of us devils.


Yeah, I've seen the same thing. But I've never had the opportunity (or the ability) to plot the data myself. Once again I tend to look at who's presenting the data. But as I understand it, both can be true. The initial increase in CO2 levels can start the warming trend. As the atmosphere warms, more CO2 is released from places like thawing tundra, causing further rises in CO2 level. As I've stated often, it's very complex, but sticking with the experts is more likely to get the correct answers. After all, if you can't get your car started, you'll be more likely to solve the problem by seeing a mechanic than by stopping at the local fast food restaurant.


I was taught the same way. But you don't rely on just one test. If the tests don't agree, redo the tests. Or maybe reexamine your procedures. Only when all other approaches have failed do you go back and change, or scrap, your hypothesis.

[DuncanONeil]

A bit of linguistic Pepto here! Should we not be calling an unproven theory a hypothesis?


And even then any given experiment has to be repeated by a large cross section of ones peers under the same conditions to confirm the results or ones experiment can be considered spurious.

Scientific method 101.

Btw a hypothesis is a preconcieved idea by any other name.

Furthermore...the cherry picking of data by the different proponents of one theory or another (and yes they are still all unconfirmed theories at this point) and yes both sides appear imho to be cherry picking ) is very often the result of too many scientists taking the word of too many other scientists at face value and or being ruled by their passion as opposed to their reason (scientists are human just like the rest of us) or conducting independent reaserch to confirm their findings.

And I wouldnt be too quick to jump the gun and say that if one isnt a "climatoligist" they have no business refuting the findings of a cross/inter disiplinary science.

When the deccan taps debate began between the astronomers and the geologists the same sorry hyperbole was used and it didnt solve a thing.

In fact...its starting to look as if both parties were right on that one, it wasnt any one event but a series of events.

For a scientific theory to work as a scientific fact it must be cross disiplinarly inclussive.

[DuncanONeil]

"I think the problem with this whole debate is that we are getting far to much input from the politicians and the talk show wackos (of all stripes) and far too little from the scientists. What we need is a popular, respected, erudite scientist who can explain these things in terms the average person can understand. Someone like Carl Sagan, perhaps. The problem is that the impact of global warming is so widespread that the politicians just can't keep out of it. And as we all know, the politicians will fall onto the side of an issue which will insure their continued reelection and a continuous flow of income. Currently, denying global warming is what meets those criteria. "

Hear ! Hear!

[DuncanONeil]

You may have noticed it goes both ways in the media driven political spectrum, denying it appeals to one side, and supporting it at all costs to the other.

Polarization of the issue between the democrats and republicans as portrayed by the talking heads is supposabely being divided strictly down party lines...which is hardely the reality of it.


I think it is the "all costs" that marks the real difference between the groups. With "all costs" belong to the majority of AGW proponents. Who may have Steven Colbert as their prime news source!

[DuncanONeil]

Did you not see the links from Steelish?

Whish I could find the material that Moncton presented. It was quite interesting!


Now see? That term, "supporting it at all costs" makes supporters sound like raving lunatics who are unable to let go of their pet theory. Yet they are not the ones calling for their opponents to be flogged, or hanged, or imprisoned. For my own case, all I ask is that someone provide tangible, verifiable evidence to support their claims. I've seen plenty of it from the AGW proponents. I've seen damned little of it from the deniers.


That's not surprising. The American people as a whole can't be neatly divided down party lines. There are some hard-core right wing nuts and some hard-core left wing nuts. But the majority of people lie somewhere in the middle. Trapped between the wingnuts.

[Thorne]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!
Even the penultimate arbiter of AGW in England admits there has been no warming for nearly 20 years. How come that is not reported by the darlings of the Government?
If you watched the video I posted you would see that the "lack" of warming since 1995 is not quite accurate. There has been slight warming, but it's been at such a slow rate that it is outside the statistically significant values. If I'm correct in my interpretation, that means that they can't say for sure that there has been warming, but they can't say for sure that there hasn't been, either.

But one thing to remember is that the solar sunspot cycle was declining for about the last 8 years, which should have meant cooling temperatures. And for the last 2-3 years there has been virtually no sunspot activity at all, suggesting even more cooling of the atmosphere. Yet the global temps have remained stable, or possibly risen slightly. Now that the sunspot cycle has restarted we should start seeing higher temperatures over the next 5-7 years. Just how high is anybody's guess.

[denuseri]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.

[steelish]

Even with interspaced cooling periods the overall trend in the climatoligists data sugests a series of ever increasing high average temperature spikes of increasing duration and intensity to be occuring in recent history.

Geological findings have told us what extremes in atmospheric composition and temperature the planet has previously experienced as well as various durations of each and can provide workable models for possible effects postulated climate changes can mean for us and our posterity.

Where as meterological data apears to be sugesting something else entirely at present.

That warming is and has been occuring isnt nessesarally in question in my book.

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.


And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.

[steelish]

I think you have it backwards. The ones doing the research become AGW advocates because they've seen the data. They do the studies. They gather the information.

I've provided plenty of links to researchers and scientists who have studied the data and still don't believe in AGW.

[Thorne]

What is in question and where I find the 'evidence" lacking or contravertibley hazy, is in the conclussion (not vertible evidence of repeatable peer reviewed experiments) that the warming is a direct or sole result of humanity's presence and or that the warming is going to continue unabated becuase of us if we dont change everything yesterday.

This does not mean that I am saying we don't or can't contribute to it, it simpley means I dont see any real proof as of yet that we are the sole cuase.

I'll go along with you here. I also don't think there's enough evidence to say we are the sole cause. The problem is far too complex to say that. There are things we still don't know about the climate and what effects certain things have upon it.

But I also feel that the evidence FOR global warming is strong, and the evidence that our CO2 emissions are adding to the problem is just as strong. Doing something about that is in all of our interests. Letting governments take the lead, though, is suicidal.

[Thorne]

I've provided plenty of links to researchers and scientists who have studied the data and still don't believe in AGW.
Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

[steelish]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.

And I've never denied that there is general global warming going on either. Nor will I deny it when the earth starts a cooling trend....

What I am against is all the political crap surrounding the issue - that, and the "theory" that man is the cause of it all.

[DuncanONeil]

Eaither way I believe as previously stated several times in the thread, that we can and should reduce and change the way we pollute our enviroment and that we should expand technologically away from non-renewable scources of energy production and be ready for possible conditions that may occur if and when certian climatic thresholds are reached.


And even before it became politically popular to jump on this particular band wagon, not to mention gravy train, people were working hard on alternative energy means.
The Government rather than actually investing in these people are simply stamping their collective foot and saying you WILL use less of whatever I tell you because I know what is best!
Never mind that I know nothing of the subject! (i.e. 7,000,000 degrees at the Earth's core)

[DuncanONeil]

And that is exactly how I feel as well.

That being said, I find it reprehensible that our government is using this platform as a way to "redistribute" the wealth. Many Americans, who are Socialist by nature, think this is a great idea and believe this is a way to pull third world countries "up". This won't happen. What will happen is America will be brought "down" a level or two towards the third world country level.


"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

[DuncanONeil]

Yeah, I shouldn't have used AGW. It's easier than typing out Global Warming, and using GW can be confusing on a political thread.

There are scientists, even climatologists, who don't believe that man is the SOLE cause of global warming, as noted above in denuseri's post and mine. That doesn't mean they are denying general global warming, though.


Suggestion.
NAGW or NON-AGW

[leo9]

Only thing to say is;
It seems to me that the data is very well hidden, lost, or coded TSEO!

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php

[steelish]

"(A)s a way to "redistribute" the wealth", like Al Gore!!

Yes. Al Gore, Barak Obama, John Holdren, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Harry Reid and many, many more

[DuncanONeil]

Pst! Mr. Bond! Here's the link to one of the top secret hidden organisations that has the secret suppressed data you were looking for...

http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/index_en.php


What is the arbitrary data point 0.0?
Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

[leo9]

Further these are not data sets but already massaged reports.

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained5.html

[leo9]

If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained5.html

Oh, right, I forgot... it's by meteorologists... can't be trusted. Anyone who knows about the subject is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.

[denuseri]

Just when we had allmost reached a consensus of sorts in a forum thread....sighs.

[leo9]

Oh, and here's a funny thing. You know when people say "Yes, OK, the deniers are funded by the oil industry, but who funds the environmentalists, eh? Tell us that?"

Here's the answer, and it's not what you expected...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/polluted-by-profit-johann-hari-on-the-real-climategate-1978770.html

[denuseri]

I allways said that the politicans were owned by the corperations...looks like the enviromental activists and scientists have been bought off as well.

[Thorne]

I allways said that the politicans were owned by the corperations...looks like the enviromental activists and scientists have been bought off as well.
It's because they are all people. <sigh> Well, sooner or later the insects are going to take over the planet anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

You made an assumption about what I looked at.
In case you came up with a solid source I checked the below reference link. From there I went to four other links, two of which claiming to be data, and have the same result. The information has already been massaged and there is a reference point of 0.0 that has no meaning.
Therefore we remain in the same place accepting as data the material that someone else has decided is sufficient to prove their point.


If you can't be be bothered to follow the links, here's another that connects to the original data sources:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/explained/explained5.html

[DuncanONeil]

Oh, right, I forgot... it's by meteorologists... can't be trusted. Anyone who knows about the subject is ipso facto part of the conspiracy.


Low blow! I never even suggested such a thing.

[steelish]

Emerald Cities Collaborative
The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) describes itself as a “start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials.” The group’s goal is to make metropolitan areas green. Members sitting on the board of directors include representatives from Green for All (Van Jones co-founded), SEIU, AFL-CIO, Goldman Sachs and Enterprise Community Partners.


Al Gore
Al Gore’s main claim to fame is his role in our nation’s history, as Vice President of United States. Prior to his role in the White House, Gore served eight years in the US House of Representatives, and two terms as a U.S. Senator. In more recent times his environmental activism has made him a proponent of spreading the green way of life. His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, warned people of the serious dangers of global warming, climate change and the future of our Earth. Critics have noted several significant errors in his movie ranging from, the drowning of polar bears to the melting of snow on Kilimanjaro and drying of Lake Chad. As the Chairman of the Board for the Alliance for Climate Protection, his lifestyle is not always representative of a greener good. Under speculation for years, he’s been given the nickname “carbon billionaire” for making money off his preaching of carbon emissions into the environment. Gore is also the co-founder of the private investment firm, Generation Investment Management. He holds an undergraduate degree in government from Harvard University .

Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs is a publicly held global investment banking and securities firm. Unlike a traditional bank, Goldman connects investors and money to the businesses and governments in need of it. In 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased a 10% stake in Climate Exchange, PLC.

The Joyce Foundation
A private U.S. foundation which provides funding and support to initiatives focusing on education, environment, and employment in the Great Lakes region. The Joyce Foundation was established in 1948 by Beatrice Joyce Kean of Chicago. Since its inception the Foundation has made grants of more than $600 million. Some of those grants include $1.1 million to Richard Sandor in 2000-2001 to create the Chicago Climate Exchange; $175,000 in 2008 to the Tides Center for the Apollo Alliance; and $200,000 in 2009 to Enterprise Community Partners to launch the Emerald Cities Collaborative.
Former Board of Directors’ members include President Barack Obama (1994-2002) and Valerie Jarrett (2003-

President Barack Obama
Barack H. Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008, and sworn in on January 20, 2009. Before becoming President, he served four short years in the U.S. Senate. He cut his political teeth as an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2004. Active in the Chicago community, he served on the board of the progressive Joyce Foundation from 1994-2002. The future President was the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review and received his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in 1983. The son of black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, he was mainly raised by his grandmother in Hawaii. His father wrote of socialist policies as an economist for the Kenyan government, while his mother identified with Marxism.

Richard Sandor
Richard Sandor is the Chairman and founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the only voluntary trading system of greenhouse gases in North America. He also serves as Chariman of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE) and Executive Chairman of Climate Exchange, PLC.
Sandor is also a research professor at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University where he teaches environmental finance. He’s the former Chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) Clean Air Committee and vice president and chief economist of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).

Chicago Climate Exchange
A U.S. corporation, the CCX is the only trading system for greenhouse gases in North America. The idea of Chairman & CEO Richard Sandor, CCX was created through $1.1 million in grants from the Joyce Foundation. It’s trading officially launched in 2003. Since then, the CCX has grown to include 300 members worldwide. CCX, along with the European Climate Exchange (ECX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX) were operated by Climate Exchange, PLC until April 2010 when the company was sold to Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) for $606 million.

Climate Exchange, PLC
Climate Exchange (CLE) is a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange. Its three core businesses are the European Climate Exchange (ECX), Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFX). The company is also developing in China, Canada and Australia. CLE was sold to InterContinental Exchange (ICE) in April 2010 for $606 million. ICE previously held a 4.79% stake in CLE.

InterContinental Exchange
InterContinental Echange (ICE) is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. Based in Atlanta, ICE operates trading platforms and clearing houses globally for agricultural, credit, currency, emissions and energy markets. Established in 2000, the company’s goal was to “transform OTC energy markets by providing an open, accessible, around-the-clock electronic energy marketplace to a previously fragmented and opaque market.”

Generation Investment Management (GIM)
Generation is a privately owned investment company with offices in London and New York. The company invests in global, public entities with an emphasis on climate. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. GIM had a 2.98% stake in Climate Exchange, PLC, which operated the Chicago Climate Exchange. InterContinental Exchange (ICE) purchased Climate Exchange, PLC in April 2010 for $606 million.

David Blood
Along with Gore, David Blood co-founded Generation Investment Management and acts as the firm’s Senior Partner. Blood is the former co-CEO and CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management. After growing up in Brazil, he graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Hamilton College and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

Franklin Raines
The disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO resigned in 2004 amid a SEC investigation into the company’s accounting practices. Raines inflated earnings, costing the company about $9 billion. Despite his actions, he walked away making close to $90 million in pay and stock during his 5 years at the company. A year after his resignation, a U.S. patent was approved for a “System and method for residential emissions trading.” Both Raines and Fannie Mae were named on the patent. Raines currently sits on the board of trustees of Enterprise Community Partners. He formerly served as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1996-1998 during the Clinton Administration.

Fannie Mae
Fannie Mae is a government sponsored company that was created by Congress in 1983. It works with mortgage brokers to create “affordable” mortgages for home owners. Since 2008, Fannie Mae has received $137 billion in federal aid. The Treasury Department has agreed to fund Fannie Mae through 2012. Its brother company is Freddie Mac.

Enterprise Community Partners
Enterprise is a private company dedicated to helping individuals and families find affordable homes. Enterprise claims to have the first national green building program specializing in affordable housing. The Enterprise Green Communities’ goal is “to fundamentally transform the way we think about, design and build affordable homes” by providing funding and technical assistance to developers to create low-income housing which is environmentally friendly. It’s also an advocate for federal policy on affordable housing and community development.

Emerald Cities Collaborative
The Emerald Cities Collaborative (ECC) describes itself as a “start-up, national coalition of diverse groups that includes unions, labor groups, community organizations, social justice advocates, development intermediaries, research and technical assistance providers, socially responsible businesses, and elected officials.” The group’s goal is to make metropolitan areas green.

Joel Rogers
Joel Rogers is the man behind the curtain. Well known throughout the world of political activism, he’s practically a stranger to the public . His main causes revolve around the redistribution of wealth through a green society. The University of Wisconsin professor is the creator of the Apollo Alliance, dedicated to the promotion of clean energy and the creation of green-collared jobs. Championed by John Sweeney, Andy Stern and Van Jones, Rogers also serves on the board of Emerald Cities Collaborative and acts as the director of COWS. Additionally, he’s a senior policy adviser to Green for All, a group under the wing of Van Jones. Rogers co-founded the now defunct New Party, a progressive political party started in the early 1990s which was sympathetic to the advancement of labor unions. The party dissolved in 1997 and was reinvented a year later as the Working Families Party. Rogers’ wife, Sarah Siskind, a partner at the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, defended Acorn in 2002.

Apollo Alliance
Inspired by the Apollo space program, the alliance is made up of business and community leaders looking to “catalyze a clean energy revolution.” The Alliance created the “New Apollo Program,” an economic plan of its priorities including a “cap and invest” program to reduce carbon emissions. The Program claims it will generate and invest $500 billion into the economy over the span of ten years. The Alliance released its program to coincide with the Obama Administration’s call for a stimulus plan. Because of this, the Alliance is said to have strongly shaped the $787 billion Stimulus Plan in 2009. The Apollo Alliance is a project of George Soros’ non-profit Tides Center. The Apollo Alliance is also the group who authored the Stimulus Package.

Green for All
Green for All is a national organization dedicated to breaking the cycle of poverty through a green economy. It works alongside government, grassroots and labor organizations to increase job opportunities in green industry. Green for All was co-founded by former White House Environmental Adviser Van Jones.

[steelish]

In January of this year, there was yet another scandal with the IPCC, the climate arm of the UN. It seems they were sourcing the imminent melting (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece) of glaciers to an off handed comment in a phone conversation, NOT peer reviewed science.

At the time, the head of the IPCC Rajendra K. Pachauri said “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago.” Unfortunately for him, it’s now been revealed (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece) he was actually told about it months earlier, reportedly in November.

This was before Copenhagen, and in the midst of the breaking Climategate scandal, and the IPCC couldn’t afford yet another mark on their record at such a crucial time. Is this why they didn’t talk about the problems with their glacier sourcing back then? The IPCC denies this, of course, but were they subtly tipping their hand?

Yet another climategate?

11/26/09: IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

12/04/09: IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

The discrepancy goes back to November 26th, 2009. In their attempt to blow off Climategate, IPCC head Pachauri released this statement, printed on the New York Times (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/pachauri-discusses-the-climate-files/?pagemode=print) website. It’s basically what you’d expect—for example:


It is unfortunate that an illegal act of accessing private email communications between scientists who have been involved as authors in I.P.C.C. assessments in the past has led to several questions and concerns. It is important for me to clarify that the I.P.C.C. as a body follows impartial, open and objective assessment of every aspect of climate change carried out with complete transparency.

But the next line was key:


IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

However, go to the IPCC website today, and you’ll find a link (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-4dec09.pdf) to the exact same 418 word statement, but with one difference.


IPCC relies mainly on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment…

Strangely enough, the new document with the change from “entirely” to “mainly” was uploaded 8 days after the original. What happened here? Is this some sort of mistake? Did the Times just screw it up? Or was it an intentional change to hide the reports lack of peer review? Those who follow how much the IPCC, its supporters, and people like Al Gore know how often they tout their peer review purity.

To review:

On 11-26-2009 NY Times: "IPCC relies entirely (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/pachauri-discusses-the-climate-files/?pagemode=print) on peer reviewed literature..."
On 12-4-2009 IPCC website: "IPCC relies mainly (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-4dec09.pdf) on peer reviewed literature..."

So, did they change this knowing what was coming with Glaciergate?

Or perhaps they knew about even more. Now we learn the UK Telegraph has found two additional newly discovered sourcing debacles. The IPCC claims about melting ice in the Alps, the Andes, and in Africa come not from peer reviewed scientific literature—but from Climbing Magazine (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/climbing_magazine_issue_208.jpg).

It’s sort of like “Runners World” for mountain climbing. Amazingly, that’s the better of the two sources. The other source was –I kid you not---a student dissertation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html) --written by a climate change activist ----while he was studying for a degree…in GEOGRAPHY.

And…now…another: “A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece) who had little scientific expertise.”

While all of this is going on, the head of the IPCC isn’t resigning---he’s releasing an explicit romance novel (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html). Not kidding.

What is going on here? And why are papers in the UK the only ones reporting on it?

[Thorne]

What is going on here? And why are papers in the UK the only ones reporting on it?

Good questions! And disturbing reports. If these allegations are true it will likely deal a death blow to the IPCC's credibility, and justly so. IF they are true.

The change from "entirely" to "mainly" does not bother me, barring any evidence of deliberate lies. It's quite possible that whoever wrote the report changed it after learning that it was inaccurate. The change coming before anyone else found out about these other reports leans in that direction at least, barring any other evidence.

But the idea of relying on unsubstantiated reports from non-professional witnesses and anecdotal evidence flies in the face of the scientific method, and these allegations must be investigated fully and quickly.

Even if the allegations are true, I still don't think this is a back-breaker for Global Warming, but perhaps it will make governments around the world pull back on stupid and probably ineffective legislation about it.

[Ultraprene]

The evidence for climate change isn't just in weather records for the past hundred years or so, but in understanding the physics. The Earth "normally" has a temp about 30 deg C above that you would calculate from the Planck Theory of heat radiation. That is due to Greenhouse effect of CO2 and other gases with optical absorption bands around 10-15 microns. During the industrial age we have nearly doubled the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the amount is about half that released by fossil fuel burning. (the rest was mostly absorbed int he oceans making them more acidic.) Isotopic analysis shows that the added CO2 came from fossil fuel. I recommend an excellent article in the Jan. 2011 "Physics Today."

If a kid is batting baseballs at a house, d owe have to wait till he has broken a window to predict that eventually he will?

[Thorne]

If a kid is batting baseballs at a house, d owe have to wait till he has broken a window to predict that eventually he will?
Only if you can't admit that windows can be broken by baseballs. After all, have you ever seen a window broken by a baseball? Do you have any proof that the baseball can actually break the window? No, no, actually testing this theory by throwing baseballs at windows is not acceptable, because everyone knows that no one deliberately throws baseballs at windows in real life. I'll only accept real evidence of a baseball being hit by a kid and breaking a window. What? Which video is that? Oh, that's an obvious fake, made by a window maker. In league with the government to raise our taxes to pay for all the windows that aren't going to get broken anyway. It's all a conspiracy, don't you know.

[Ultraprene]

There is, of course the Milankovitch Theory of glaciation cycles but this describes long-term effects over thousands of years, not the rapid change we are observing. And the Milankovitch theory would have us in a slow cooling phase now. However, if you can document your "theory" write it up and submit it to a scientific journal. That's what the way legitimate theories are presented, not by just spouting any idea that pops into one's head without any supporting evidence. Put another way, if you want to join a scientific debate, you must do it by the accepted rules of the "game." Tell you what. If you send me your manuscript I will help you get it published. I am a member of several scientific societies with appropriate journals.

[Ultraprene]

Actually, there were news stories in the US as well, including the scientific newsletters. It is true that a few of the thousands of scientists participating in the IPCC were sloppy in their methods. Shame on them. Still, their errors do not overthrow the fundamental science. There are dishonest or sloppy people in every profession but it does not mean that everything coming from that profession is false. I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

[Thorne]

I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.
I've done thermodynamic calculations in the past, and I've measured infrared absorption, as well as UV absorption, of many compounds, including carbon dioxide. Not familiar with the Planck-Boltzmann theory, theory, though. A quick search comes up with the Fokker-Planck-Boltzmann equation, which at first blush does not appear to have any direct bearing on climate research, though it does deal with the relationship between energy and temperature. The math is way over my head.

So, does this mean it's okay for me to comment on Climate change?

[denuseri]

Here is a recent report conserning climate change that some may find interseting:

Arctic ice is melting faster than expected and could raise the average global sea level by as much as five feet this century, an authoritative new report suggests.
The study by the international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, or AMAP, is one of the most comprehensive updates on climate change in the Arctic, and builds on a similar assessment in 2005.
The full report will be delivered to foreign ministers of the eight Arctic nations next week, but an executive summary including the key findings was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.
It says that Arctic temperatures in the past six years were the highest since measurements began in 1880, and that feedback mechanisms believed to accelerate warming in the climate system have now started kicking in.
One mechanism involves the ocean absorbing more heat when it's not covered by ice, which reflects the sun's energy. That effect has been anticipated by scientists "but clear evidence for it has only been observed in the Arctic in the past five years," AMAP said.
The report also shatters some of the forecasts made in 2007 by the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change.
The cover of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, for example, is shrinking faster than projected by the U.N. panel. The level of summer ice coverage has been at or near record lows every year since 2001, AMAP said, predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be nearly ice free in summer within 30-40 years.
Its assessment also said the U.N. panel was too conservative in estimating how much sea levels will rise — one of the most closely watched aspects of global warming because of the potentially catastrophic impact on coastal cities and island nations.
The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain.
That's up from a 2007 projection of 7 to 23 inches (19-59 centimeters) by the U.N. panel, which didn't consider the dynamics of ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctica.
"The observed changes in sea ice on the Arctic Ocean, in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet and Arctic ice caps and glaciers over the past 10 years are dramatic and represent an obvious departure from the long-term patterns," AMAP said in the executive summary.
The organization's main function is to advise the nations surrounding the Arctic — the U.S., Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland — on threats to the Arctic environment.
The findings of its report — Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic — will be discussed by some of the scientists who helped compile it at a conference starting Wednesday in the Danish capital, Copenhagen.
In the past few years, scientists have steadily improved ways of measuring the loss of ice into the oceans.
In research reported in March in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, U.S. and European scientists used two independent methods to corroborate their findings: the on-the-ground measurement of ice thickness and movements using GPS stations and other tools, and the measurement of ice mass through gravity readings from satellites.
That team, led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, projected that the accelerating melt of the vast Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would itself raise sea levels by about 6 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. Adding in other factors — expansion of the oceans from warming and runoff from other glaciers worldwide — would raise sea levels a total of some 13 inches (32 centimeters) by 2050, they said.
They did not project sea levels to 2100 because of long-range uncertainties.

Currents, winds and other forces would make sea-level rise vary globally, but Bangladesh, Florida and other such low-lying areas and coastal cities worldwide would be hard hit.
The AMAP report said melting glaciers and ice sheets worldwide have become the biggest contributor to sea level rise. Greenland's ice sheet alone accounted for more than 40 percent of the 0.12 inches (3.1 millimeters) of sea-level rise observed annually between 2003 and 2008, AMAP said.
It said the yearly mass loss from Greenland's ice sheet, which covers an area the size of Mexico, increased from 50 gigatons in 1995-2000 to more than 200 gigatons in 2004-2008. Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. AMAP projected that average fall and winter temperatures in the Arctic will climb by 5.4-10.8 F (3-6 C) by 2080, even if greenhouse gas emissions are lower than in the past decade.

[Thorne]

And all the deniers will see in this report is this comment:

Scientists are still debating how much of the changes observed in the Arctic are due to natural variances and how much to warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
And they will say, "See? Even the experts admit they don't know, therefore there is no global warming!"

Nice post, denuseri. Maybe there are still a few ultra-right-wingers out there who will see this and realize that they were wrong all along.

I won't hold my breath.

[denuseri]

Im actually begining to change my former views conserning the reasons for the current global warming cycle that appears to be happening as well.

Though the topic is highly politicalized however I do not see it as a right/left issue.

More and more I am starting to think that assertations of a causuality directly in whole or in part as result of human beings effect on our enviroment may hold more wieght than I was previously willing to commit too.
Im also starting to think that the majority of the claims made against this is generated by those whose primary intrests isnt saving the world for our posterity so much as squeezing every last bit of profit out of the ground despite all information pointing to that being the wrong way to go.

[Thorne]

More and more I am starting to think that assertations of a causuality directly in whole or in part as result of human beings effect on our enviroment may hold more wieght than I was previously willing to commit too.

Welcome to the club. I was the same way. It was obvious to me that warming was taking place, but not so obvious that humans were the cause. I've had to change my mind as well. There's just too much evidence to deny it.

[IAN 2411]

I bet there are even people writing on climate change in this Forum who can't even describe the Planck-Boltzmann theory, or do a thermodynamic calculation, or explain the infrared absorption properties of carbon dioxide. But they still run off at the mouth.

I know damn all about the Plank-Boltzmann theory or how to do thermodynamic, but that doesn’t mean I’m thick or stupid. I don’t think we have had a person on this site that has blatantly put himself and his encyclopaedia intelligence over everyone that has an opinion. Don’t accuse people of running off at the mouth if you are doing that very thing, you don’t score points in these threads by telling everyone how good and clever you think you are and how stupid everyone else is.

And one other point I would like to mention the Plank-Boltzmann theory and the Milankovitch theory are as you say, just theories. It is probably for that reason that I have never bothered to read it or find out about it. Scientists that are paid thousands of $/£ of tax payers money, and then think it is ok to come out of the woodwork after X amount of years with a theory should be sent to prison as frauds. I listen and look at facts not the ramblings of fools trying to justify their few years sitting on their ass in the Caribbean.

I look out the window on the end of April beginning of May three weeks and I cannot remember in the last 50 years when there has been a spring as hot as this, that is not the IAN 2411 theory, it is a fact. Although I have a theory that this summer is going to be hot in the UK and the winter once again cold, it don’t matter if I am wrong because it is only a theory and not to be taken seriously. In other words you don’t have to be a scientist to come out with a theory, and especially ones that are full of crap. Everyone is intitled to their opinion and theory.

Be well IAN 2411

[MrEmann]

steelish

you are 100 % correct in your view. There are many "peer reviewed" publications that show the politics of "Global climate control" are suspicious at best. There are exists enough in the scientific community that do not agree with the policy of climate change at all.

Temperatures world wide have been decreasing over the last several years. This in fact is what changed "global warming" to "global climate change". The simple fact was "global warming" couldn't stand stand in the face of decreasing temperatures, so the "doom sayers" had to , repeat HAD TO, invent "global climate change" to stay relevant.

you are also correct that in the 70s it was a new ice age that was going to kill us all. We would all be freezing to death. Now were are all going to bake to death.

Also ignored by the "regular" people that follow these trends. The ones that are so willing to believe every untruth that comes out on this subject. Those "leaders" that espouse this crap are ALL heavily invested in the going "green" economy. They will profit mightily of this comes to pass. In fact Al Gore, General Electric, etc will make profits that would make the "evil" oil companies envious. In fact pale in comparison to the record "obscene" profits that everyone seems to accuse the evil fat corporate oil companies for.

As for the destruction of this planet...IF every nuclear weapon in every arsenal were unleashed today, the planet would not be destroyed. Yeah life, as we know it would end. The planet itself would still be here. Humans simply cannot destroy this planet.

Let's not forget that just a few years ago, it was cow farts that were making greenhouse gas. Those evil damn cows just didn't give a damn about humans, or life on this planet. There were actually rudimentary devices being designed that cattle ranchers and dairy farmers were going to have to put on the livestock to recycle and clean the deadly cow farts. That would of course increased meat and dairy prices.

Not bad enough we can't seem to keep jobs in this country. Let's punish and destroy the few we have left. Let's attack with impunity every job we can. Let's tax, regulate, and control via Congress and Senate , every aspect of a free economy. Until there is not longer a free economy. Yeah that will work in our favor.

The American way of life is under attack every day form this kind of bullshit.

There is not one concrete piece of evidence that proves the threat of "global climate change", but hey we better address this now. BEFORE it's too late.

"The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Seems I have read this story before.

[Thorne]

you are 100 % correct in your view. There are many "peer reviewed" publications that show the politics of "Global climate control" are suspicious at best.
The politics of ANYTHING are suspicious at best. That's because politicians are more interested in the next election than in the truth.


There are exists enough in the scientific community that do not agree with the policy of climate change at all.
And how many of these are actually climate scientists? Very few, in point of fact. And most of the controversy is not in whether climate change is occurring as in what is causing it. Would you accept the opinions of a TV weatherman regarding your recent X-rays, or would you prefer to see a real doctor? Why is it, then, that people are more willing to accept the opinions of astrologers on global climate change over those of actual climatologists?


Temperatures world wide have been decreasing over the last several years. This in fact is what changed "global warming" to "global climate change".
You are quite correct. This is exactly what has been happening. That's because climate is a complex system built of complex systems. Temperatures tend to go up and down cyclically. The problem is that the temperatures at the peak of the cycle have been getting slowly higher, while those at the trough of the cycle have not been getting as low as previous troughs. The trend is constantly upward.


you are also correct that in the 70s it was a new ice age that was going to kill us all. We would all be freezing to death. Now were are all going to bake to death.
And this is why climate hypotheses had to undergo revisions before eventually becoming climate theories. And most of that hoopla in the 70's was actually caused by media misunderstanding of actual claims. As has been happening recently, there was a decline in global temperatures during the 70's, and some media hack(s) misrepresented much of the science.


Those "leaders" that espouse this crap are ALL heavily invested in the going "green" economy. They will profit mightily of this comes to pass. In fact Al Gore, General Electric, etc will make profits that would make the "evil" oil companies envious. In fact pale in comparison to the record "obscene" profits that everyone seems to accuse the evil fat corporate oil companies for.
Which is another good reason for NOT paying much attention to political, media and industrial leaders and listening to scientists instead.


As for the destruction of this planet...IF every nuclear weapon in every arsenal were unleashed today, the planet would not be destroyed. Yeah life, as we know it would end. The planet itself would still be here. Humans simply cannot destroy this planet.
It's just as unlikely that humanity could destroy all life on the planet. We might destroy ourselves, though, or at least our civilization. It's possible we could reduce the human population to the point where we would become extinct. More likely, though, we will continue to evolve, becoming a different species altogether eventually.


Not bad enough we can't seem to keep jobs in this country. Let's punish and destroy the few we have left. Let's attack with impunity every job we can. Let's tax, regulate, and control via Congress and Senate , every aspect of a free economy. Until there is not longer a free economy. Yeah that will work in our favor.
While all this might be true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the SCIENCE of climate change. Only with the politics.


There is not one concrete piece of evidence that proves the threat of "global climate change", but hey we better address this now. BEFORE it's too late.
There are literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence which, when taken together, all point to gradually increasing global temperatures. Whether anything we do can actually help is a different story. My personal opinion is that it's too late for anything we do to make a significant difference.


"The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Seems I have read this story before.
Climate change has happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen in the future. It would be silly of us to dismiss the possibility that it could be happening now, especially when there is so much evidence to show that it IS happening now, and at an unprecedented rate. Whether or not humanity has caused it, it is happening. And human activity is certainly not helping to minimize the effects. Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop it. Especially if actually doing something would cause us any inconvenience. That would just be TOO much to ask, wouldn't it?

[Thorne]

And one other point I would like to mention the Plank-Boltzmann theory and the Milankovitch theory are as you say, just theories. It is probably for that reason that I have never bothered to read it or find out about it.
Well, the next time you want to trust yourself in a high-rise building or on a bridge, you just might want to read up on engineering theory. Or at least hope that the guy who designed them knew about it.

A scientific theory is about as close to absolute truth as you can get. Like the theory of relativity, the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution, the theory of climate change has undergone rigorous scientific scrutiny which proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that it describes the facts. The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming might be still up in the air (though it's looking more and more likely), but the fact is that the climate IS changing, and in a way that may not be good for humanity.


Scientists that are paid thousands of $/£ of tax payers money, and then think it is ok to come out of the woodwork after X amount of years with a theory should be sent to prison as frauds. I listen and look at facts not the ramblings of fools trying to justify their few years sitting on their ass in the Caribbean.
Then I suggest you look at the facts, instead of listening to fools on the TV or radio who take in millions of dollars to spout nonsense.


I look out the window on the end of April beginning of May three weeks and I cannot remember in the last 50 years when there has been a spring as hot as this, that is not the IAN 2411 theory, it is a fact. Although I have a theory that this summer is going to be hot in the UK and the winter once again cold, it don’t matter if I am wrong because it is only a theory and not to be taken seriously. In other words you don’t have to be a scientist to come out with a theory, and especially ones that are full of crap. Everyone is intitled to their opinion and theory.
Actually, it is the IAN 2411 hypothesis, not a fact. And you are basing it on personal memories, not on facts. IF you get the relevant data, showing the actual temperatures, and these temperatures agree with your hypothesis, and IF your hypothesis makes predictions about future temperatures which are shown to be accurate, THEN it might gain the status of a theory. Right now all you have is anecdotal evidence which is about as reliable as eyewitness testimony.

Please learn the difference between Hollywood/media understanding of a theory and the actual scientific meaning of a theory.

[MrEmann]

The politics of ANYTHING are suspicious at best. That's because politicians are more interested in the next election than in the truth.

And of course no politician or administration is above coercing an organization into giving the results it wants. I suggest you look into how NASA was on the verge of losing funding, until the jumped on the global climate change issue. Politicians hold the purse strings, and those that want money fall in line with what is expected.

And how many of these are actually climate scientists? Very few, in point of fact. And most of the controversy is not in whether climate change is occurring as in what is causing it. Would you accept the opinions of a TV weatherman regarding your recent X-rays, or would you prefer to see a real doctor? Why is it, then, that people are more willing to accept the opinions of astrologers on global climate change over those of actual climatologists?

I am referring to climatologists. There are just as many that do not believe in global climate change as there are that do. Big difference those that disagree are impartial and receive zero government funding. Those that espouse global climate change either are funded by the government OR funded by corporations that are heavily invested in "going green"

You are quite correct. This is exactly what has been happening. That's because climate is a complex system built of complex systems. Temperatures tend to go up and down cyclically. The problem is that the temperatures at the peak of the cycle have been getting slowly higher, while those at the trough of the cycle have not been getting as low as previous troughs. The trend is constantly upward.

Again, this depends largely on whose study one is reading and quoting.

And this is why climate hypotheses had to undergo revisions before eventually becoming climate theories. And most of that hoopla in the 70's was actually caused by media misunderstanding of actual claims. As has been happening recently, there was a decline in global temperatures during the 70's, and some media hack(s) misrepresented much of the science.

Of course we all know that all current data is beyond reproach. Not one of the global climate crowd has been caught in a lie. Everything in Al Gore's book, and the movie based on the book is all true. Never ever been called into question.

Which is another good reason for NOT paying much attention to political, media and industrial leaders and listening to scientists instead.

Again I say the scientists that agree with global climate change are in the pocket(s) of politicians, media, and industrial leaders. This is easily verifiable.

It's just as unlikely that humanity could destroy all life on the planet. We might destroy ourselves, though, or at least our civilization. It's possible we could reduce the human population to the point where we would become extinct. More likely, though, we will continue to evolve, becoming a different species altogether eventually.

I never said we would destroy humanity. There were survivors in Japan. There would be survivors no doubt. As for evolving...All I can say is perhaps your ancestors came from apes or other life forms. Mine did not. We could argue all day about that I am sure. I believe evolution is a myth at best.

While all this might be true, it has absolutely nothing to do with the SCIENCE of climate change. Only with the politics.

The ENTIRE point of view on global climate control IS political. It's a way to regulate the United States, pick Our pockets more. Make us responsible for the world. How come NO ONE says jack shit about China. A Place that is so polluted, the Christian Bale couldn't even swim in Shang Hai harbor. Let's ALL go green. When China commits, then let's talk about the USA following Before any one wonders what the China think is all about. They have not agreed to any treaty on "global climate change". But dammit let's cripple America more, lose more American jobs, and gain nothing. Except a much poorer country.

There are literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence which, when taken together, all point to gradually increasing global temperatures. Whether anything we do can actually help is a different story. My personal opinion is that it's too late for anything we do to make a significant difference.

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse here. Many many many of these "pieces of evidence" come with their own questions. Many of them have been proven to be false. Or based upon false information. Some have even been completely made up. Of course this all falls on deaf ears.

Climate change has happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen in the future. It would be silly of us to dismiss the possibility that it could be happening now, especially when there is so much evidence to show that it IS happening now, and at an unprecedented rate. Whether or not humanity has caused it, it is happening. And human activity is certainly not helping to minimize the effects. Maybe there is nothing we can do to stop it. Especially if actually doing something would cause us any inconvenience. That would just be TOO much to ask, wouldn't it?

Humanity has not caused this. Given up all the comforts we have will not change it. Electric cars still use fossil fuels. We need to burn coal to power the plants that make electricity. Those little curly q light bulbs are going to become a pain in the ass. They are filled with mercury. As soon as there are no incandescent light bulbs left to be purchased see how long it takes until there is a Federal agency to deal with disposing those little bastards. So apparently it is just peachy keen fine if the Government tells each and every American citizen what kind of light bulbs they can have in their homes. What's next? The Light bulb police?

[Thorne]

I am referring to climatologists. There are just as many that do not believe in global climate change as there are that do. Big difference those that disagree are impartial and receive zero government funding. Those that espouse global climate change either are funded by the government OR funded by corporations that are heavily invested in "going green"
I challenge you to back up this claim. Show me your sources. (And if you even ONCE quote Faux News, or Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, I think I'll scream!


Again, this depends largely on whose study one is reading and quoting.
And I challenge you again. Show me the studies which claim differently.


Of course we all know that all current data is beyond reproach. Not one of the global climate crowd has been caught in a lie. Everything in Al Gore's book, and the movie based on the book is all true. Never ever been called into question.
NO scientific data is beyond question. ALL data is studied and restudied and questioned and tested. Yes, mistakes can be made. They are generally discovered, though, through the scientific method. And Al Gore, and his global climate buddies, can go suck eggs as far as I'm concerned. I'm talking science, not politics.


Again I say the scientists that agree with global climate change are in the pocket(s) of politicians, media, and industrial leaders. This is easily verifiable.
So verify it! Show your sources, once again. But in truth, this kind of claim is very common among conspiracy theorists. ANY evidence which disagrees with their preconceived ideas is automatically wrong, put forth by those in the pockets of the politicians.


I never said we would destroy humanity. There were survivors in Japan. There would be survivors no doubt. As for evolving...All I can say is perhaps your ancestors came from apes or other life forms. Mine did not. We could argue all day about that I am sure. I believe evolution is a myth at best.
Which makes any scientific claims you might make immediately suspect. Anyone who cannot understand at least the basic concept of evolution or the scientific method has no business making claims about science.


The ENTIRE point of view on global climate control IS political. It's a way to regulate the United States, pick Our pockets more. Make us responsible for the world. How come NO ONE says jack shit about China. A Place that is so polluted, the Christian Bale couldn't even swim in Shang Hai harbor. Let's ALL go green. When China commits, then let's talk about the USA following Before any one wonders what the China think is all about. They have not agreed to any treaty on "global climate change". But dammit let's cripple America more, lose more American jobs, and gain nothing. Except a much poorer country.
And again, this is all political, having absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the climate is changing. Definitely, fight the politics. But you better be armed with facts, not fairy tales.


Not to beat the proverbial dead horse here. Many many many of these "pieces of evidence" come with their own questions. Many of them have been proven to be false. Or based upon false information. Some have even been completely made up. Of course this all falls on deaf ears.
I'm listening! Name your sources.

Humanity has not caused this.[/QUOTE]
And you know this how? Where's your evidence? Show me the SCIENCE, not the rhetoric.

[MrEmann]

As I prepare My answer. Doing the research, and confirming My results, I have to say. I find it interesting that *if you even ONCE quote Faux News, or Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck, I think I'll scream!*. So the conservative point of view is off limits, but rhetoric from the left is acceptable? Can I quote CNN? If so why them, and not Fox news? Can I quote John Stossel, or is He too right wing? I'm just curious as to what constitutes noteworthy and honest reporting on this subject. At least to you.

[Thorne]

So the conservative point of view is off limits, but rhetoric from the left is acceptable? Can I quote CNN? If so why them, and not Fox news?
Rhetoric from ANY side is unacceptable, as rhetoric is not evidence! CNN can get it just as wrong as Fox. They just don't generally try to justify their misconceptions with religion, as O'Reilly and Beck are wont to do.

No, you said that there was SCIENCE that denies global warming. All I asked to see was that science.

[MrEmann]

Here then is the science and My final post on this subject. It will be presented as as series of Exhibits. Just as if I were in court. Each exhibit will have a link to the original source I used. There is much more in the original posts than I could ever post here. There is also much more information available out there.

I believe I will show the following

Humans did not cause this

Humans cannot fix this

Trying to change the natural patterns of the climate are futile.

Following will be My exhibits. A through I and a conclusion.

[MrEmann]

http://mises.org/daily/2571

Let's call this exhibt A in My argument.

David Evans a mathmetician by definition a scientist had this to say:

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.


This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.

The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.

The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way!

There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fractionThere is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics. of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

[MrEmann]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

This shall be exhibit B

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

[MrEmann]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9



All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

[MrEmann]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9



Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year. […]Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon. The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased. It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

[MrEmann]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html


There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year. Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas. Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years. "It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday. […] Winter sea ice could keep expanding. The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added. "The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said. If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

[MrEmann]

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/02/images_of_the_antarctic_summer_1.html

Pictures of the annual summer thaw in Antartica

and this tidbit

This process is typical during the Antarctic summer months and not a sign of global warming. Actually, the summer thaw down there was later than normal, and NASA believes that La Nina might have something to do with that. Usually, the breakup of fast ice around the Antarctica Peninsula occurs in early to mid-December, but this area was solidly frozen well into January.

[MrEmann]

Exhibit G


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.



“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”


Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.


“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.


These are only a few of the quotes I could have used.


This is also from the same article.

This Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

[MrEmann]

Exhibt H

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/963

BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth’s climate was “ultimately futile.”

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,” the scientists wrote.

[MrEmann]

Exhibit I

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

t’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.


Very enlightening. The entire article should be read.

[MrEmann]

The real story is why none of this info has EVER been mentioned on CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc. as the socialists in congress try to ram thru a $1,500/person tax on energy... It is important to inform your kids that these are not news organizations- they are propagandists.

MMGW is already the most expensive fraud in history and it’s about to get exponentially worse...


Please note. Not mentioned in any of the exhibits'

Fox News

Bill O'Reilly

Glenn Beck

John Stossel

Just scientists and peer reviewed papers.

As I maintained. There is plenty of scientific evidence to show:

Humans did not create this problem

Humans cannot stop this problem

Attempting to change the NATURAL global climate rhythms is futile

The proponents of "global climate change are more motivated by politics and pay checks.

I'm done here. I may read responses to all of this. I will not respond to any further postings.

[MrEmann]

This from Tantric Soul...


It's plenty fun to have a little off-the-cuff back and forth. But
if you're going to get self-righteous, or engage someone who clearly
disagrees with you and isn't going to give much ground, then you need
to hold yourself to a standard.

Say, ok, this is what I think is true. If it is
true, then the evidence will meet this, this, and this criteria.
Here are some links to things that match that criteria. In light
of this, I think it's reasonable to say the evidence supports my
argument–so how can you not see the validity of what I'm saying?

Then,
you've done your work. The other person either has to find
something wrong with the evidence you provided, or come up with
something on his own. In any case, while I'm still no fan of
arrogance, you'll be on far firmer footing to advocate your point of
view from than if you just said "well it's obvious that blah blah blah,
and you're just not looking closely enough". That gets you
nowhere. That's what we call a cop-out.

If you ever find
yourself losing your temper, or getting indignant, then ask yourself
this: how much evidence have you actually provided, that the person
you're debating with can actually go and check for themselves?
How much of it is just you expecting them to take you at your
word? And if that's all you got, how on Earth can you think it
fair to expect people to take you seriously?

Just some food for thought for a select group of respected posters.


I believe I have provided all of the above. Thanks.

[Thorne]

http://mises.org/daily/2571

Let's call this exhibt A in My argument.

David Evans a mathmetician by definition a scientist had this to say:


A couple of problems I have with this one:
1 - while a mathematician may be a scientist (though not necessarily so) that does NOT make him a climatologist. His expertise seems to be more concerned with the economics of global warming than with the actual science.
2 - the writer makes many scientific claims without providing links to the relevant research. Suspicious, at best. While some of these claims could POSSIBLY be valid, there is nothing to show what these claims are based on.
3 - the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy. NOT science and NOT climatology. They are considered to be "right wing" in their ideologies, and as near as I can tell with just a short scan, the Institute is not doing any research into climate change.

[Thorne]

This shall be exhibit B

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded....
<snip>
While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
You left out the most dramatic claim from this article: "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming".

Very dramatic. And very wrong! First off he admits that much of his "data" is anecdotal. He then describes weather patterns and tries to imply that they are indicative of climate patterns as well. This is just not true. All of his information is for a one year period between January 2007 and January 2008. Climate patterns can only be honestly judged over much longer time spans than that. Just off the top of my head I can recall that there is an 11 year (I think) solar cycle which can affect weather AND climate. All of the known natural cycles are already accounted for by climate scientists when they make their warnings of global climate change.

And if you had checked this author's source you would have seen a problem right away. He provides a link to the source (http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/) just before making this alarming statement: The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years."

Well, turns out that there is an "UPDATE AND CAVEAT" a short ways down in which YOUR source is mentioned. Anthony Watts, the person who provided the information for Michael Asher, your source, says categorically: "I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything."

Now, if this "anomaly" has continued over the past three years, then we might have an interesting story. But I haven't seen any evidence of that. Have you?

[Thorne]

Your exhibits C, D, E and F, which you did not label, are all variations on exhibit B. They claim a single years decline in global temperature to be a trend, rather than a possible anomaly. Has this trend continued since January 2008?

No, it has not. In fact, according to the CRU (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) 2009 and 2010 were both significantly warmer than 2008, and in fact 2010 has tied with 2003 as the third warmest year on record, trailing behind only 1998 and 2005.

They also state that: "The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record."

And in regards to the Antarctic ice sheet? That article is from - wit for it - 2008!

So five of your pieces of evidence against global warming are based upon a single anomalous year. This is not science, sir, this is cherry picking data.

[Thorne]

Exhibit G

Ahh, the listing of the scientists. Please note that this is the Senate MINORITY report in 2008 (again), which means it's from Republicans, who are noted for their anti-global warming stance to start with. This does not mean they are necessarily wrong, but it does raise a red flag.

I looked through the "highlights" they quoted and found that of the 26 quotes given only 9 were from scientists who might be remotely connected to climate studies, including meteorologists (who study weather more than climate) and environmental scientists (who I included to be fair: I'm not certain of the qualifications here). Only 35%, and these are the highlights? While these scientists will have their opinions, and can speak perhaps to the scientific process, how much real expertise do they have in the field? One of the quotes given in the highlights was from a paleontologist!

The one quote I found most relevant, and which you have quoted as well was this one:
"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Here Dr. Simpson is questioning whether mankind's release of CO2 is to blame, not whether global warming is occurring. I have already stated that there is a lot of controversy over this.

Now, I'll admit that I have not delved into the whole report to see where these quotes actually came from. I do know from other reading I have done that SOME of these kinds of reports (not necessarily this one) have been disingenuous at best, and outright lies at worst. Some scientists quoted in similar reports have apparently responded negatively to the use of their names in such reports, claiming they were either misquoted or taken out of context. I suspect, though cannot prove, that some of those quoted here could feel the same.

[Thorne]

Exhibt H
<snip>
“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables,” the scientists wrote.

Nothing wrong here. IF the current climate change is natural, there is probably little we can do about it. IF, however, it is being caused by man-made CO2 emissions, then reducing those emissions may help. Even if the warming is natural, though, adding CO2 to the atmosphere can only make things worse, not better.

[Thorne]

The real story is why none of this info has EVER been mentioned on CNN, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc. as the socialists in congress try to ram thru a $1,500/person tax on energy... It is important to inform your kids that these are not news organizations- they are propagandists.
Well, we can agree on this, at least. They are propagandists, though I think they are far closer to the middle than some other propagandist media.


Please note. Not mentioned in any of the exhibits'

Fox News

Bill O'Reilly

Glenn Beck

John Stossel

Just scientists and peer reviewed papers.
Not from what I've seen. You just used different conservative propaganda outlets.


Humans did not create this problem
This is not certain. It's possible that we did not, but mounting evidence is showing that, if nothing else, we are making things worse.


Humans cannot stop this problem
Possibly true, especially if we don't want to spend any money to attempt to stop it.


Attempting to change the NATURAL global climate rhythms is futile
Also probably true, unless of course we've already done so by actually causing this current warming trend.


The proponents of "global climate change are more motivated by politics and pay checks.
While the opponents of it are all motivated by humanitarian concerns. Yeah, right.

[Thorne]

This from Tantric Soul...

I've had similar types of reminders in the past (though not this particular one) and I've found it to be generally good advice. While we may disagree in principal, there's nothing personal about it.

You did a commendable job of coming up with your sources for your understanding of the climate change issue. The only suggestion I would make is to check the sources of those you are reading, just to make sure they are reporting what was actually written or said. It's to be expected that any organization, whether conservative or liberal, is going to raise up those items which coincide with their particular agenda while minimizing any items which contradict it. That's human nature. Even as individuals we tend to do the same thing. I know I have to remind myself constantly not to take something as gospel just because I happen to agree with it.

I am impressed by the amount of effort you put into this. I just think you might have gone one step further and checked the sources of your sources. Not only what they say but what those sources represent. As noted in my comments to Exhibit B, sometimes people tend to say what they want you to hear, and not give the whole truth. It can be hard to avoid that trap.

[IAN 2411]

This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.

I know this is a bit picky but the USA never ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, thirty other countries did including Russia....why was that? Have the USA done that now?


It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables, the scientists wrote.

I would like to think that the above is correct because if we have an earthquake here and an earthquake somewhere else....then maybe the earth moves on its axis. All theories and data are now thrown to hell.

The climate is changing it has before and it will again, I think most of what I have heard is Government hype. Both you and Thorn have said there are so many people coming up with different theories, and since they started the only thing positive that has come out of it is my Tax has gone up. My annual car test has been made harder, instead of an exhaust pipe costing £100 it will now cost me £400 for the catalectic converter, air Tax has rose and we now have, yes you’ve got it, a pollution tax. People now knock on my door not trying to sell me goods, but asking me to waste my time filling out their forms telling them what my carbon footprint is. They asked me the same questions 5 years ago and damn all has changed except I have less money to spend and those that Tax me have more.

This thread has got so technical that I am baffled at what you two are trying to prove to each other, except that you research a lot more than I do. I don’t need a boffin to state the obvious to me, or the Media, leaving everyone short with more questions than answers. Why for once don’t they come up with answers that the poor fucker on the street [me] can understand?

All the time the rain forests are burning, India, China and Russia are throwing up industrial smoke and they will be for a few years yet as developing industrial nations. Then there are the Volcanoes throwing up smoke debris and gasses; there will always be those shouting green house effect. It just seems that everything that goes wrong in the world today in natural disasters is blamed on our carbon footprint. The earth has been cooling since it was formed and it will be still cooling when all these clever brains are dead. There are natural earth quakes, tornadoes, eruptions and ice ages and now global warming. We now live in an age of great knowledge so a natural global warming has become green house gasses and a problem, don’t just blame the people for causing it, tax them.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Ian, you're right, it is complicated. Climate is complicated. The atmosphere is unimaginably large, and there are so many different things which affect it, including the state of the ocean, which has it's own set of complex mechanisms. It's this very complexity which leads to such varying positions. No one, not even scientists, can claim to understand every part of the climate interactions. All they can do is study and model them, and get close approximations.

You are right that the Earth's core is gradually cooling, but the rate of cooling is so slow as to be insignificant over the period since the rise of homo sapiens. The same is true of most natural sources of greenhouse gases, such as volcanoes and earthquakes. These have always been there, and at approximately the same levels, so they can be treated as a constant. The biggest variable currently is mankind. We are releasing millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, over and above the naturally occurring gases. While there is still a lot of argument over just how much we are affecting the system, it would be foolish to believe that we are not having any effects at all.

As for your taxes, sorry, I have no good advice for you, other than to monitor the government offices responsible for spending those tax dollars and trying to make sure they are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Though in this day and age that kind of thing just might get you arrested.

As an aside, I remember reading somewhere (and it's too long past my bedtime for me to try to find it now) that climate models which have been run tend to match historical climate data from as far back as they can get it right up until the start of the Industrial Age, at which point the models start diverging, predicting consistently lower global temperatures than are being found. Just one more piece of information to consider.